StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33397.html

Some notable quotes from none other than Bill Gates for you Microsoft-haters:

"How could we ignore the browser?," Gates responded. "The Explorer is fully integrated with the operating system, take it away and the OS grinds to a halt. When you call up Help, you're using the browser. In Office 2003 instead of going to the local files, the browser will go online and fetch the latest documents."

[Am I seeing a really golden opportunity here for malicious hackers?]

"The truth is that more people are getting after us [on security]," Gates said. "We've gone from little over 40 hours on average to 24 hours [to fix a bug]. With Linux, that would be a couple of weeks on average."

[Yeah, right.]

"We have to. We invented personal computing. It is the best tool of empowerment there has ever been. If there is anything that clouds that picture, we need to fix it."

[Gates has more delusions of grandeur... like anyone should be surprised.]

Jaysuse Aych KaRaaast! FUD, Propaganda, AND Disinformation All rolled into one! How maliciously efficient of those fuckheads.

FUCK Longhorn, FUCK Micro$$$oft, FUCK DRM, and Fuck anyone who allies with them; I'm switching to Linux when I get my new computer!

For all other microsoft haters- who is worse- Ballmer or Gates?
Ballmer strikes me as more threatening and irks me off more.

Definitely Ballmer!










'Nuff Said.

Microsoft seems to be running low on creative juices these days. Windows 95 and Micrsoft Office suits were truly revolutionary software that redefined personal computing but eversince then creativity has been going downhill at Mircrosoft.

There has been titanic changes under the hood in newer operating systems like Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 etc. But the user interface remains the same. What Bill Gates needs to do now is to put more emphasis on what the average user sees when he or she uses Windows.

The average user does not know nor cares about the internals of Windows technology. They want an easy to use stable operating system that meets their every needs at a reasonable price. That is what Microsoft needs to address in Longhorn.

Gates says he isn't aware of Microsoft expanding its relationship with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies in a deal designed to more closely integrate the basic building blocks of the PC with the Longhorn system, as suggested by ZDNET. Both Microsoft and Phoenix are involved in plans to integrate digital rights management (DRM) technology at the operating system and hardware level, according to sources in the US.

"To be honest, I haven't heard from Phoenix Technologies for over five years," Gates said. "Are they still in business? The BIOS will always be separated from the operating system. Actually, it's gotten out of date. If you run Windows XP, it calls very little of the BIOS."

(Bolding mine)

evilcat4000 wrote:Microsoft seems to be running low on creative juices these days. Windows 95 and Micrsoft Office suits were truly revolutionary software that redefined personal computing but eversince then creativity has been going downhill at Mircrosoft.

That's because they had to compete back then to gain marketshare. Once on top they stagnated.

Well Bill Gates certainly seems out of touch with reality. His subordinates must be doing their best to keep him simply happy while they run most of the company and do just enough so that Gates doesn't notice and fire them.


Sounds like something out of a Stalinist nightmare.

Bill Gates doesn't run the company, Steve Ballmer does.

phongn wrote:Bill Gates doesn't run the company, Steve Ballmer does.

If Ballmer runs the company, what does Gates do other than rake in lots of money?

He does various things here and there; Microsoft is not the only company he's affiliated with. He also manages a rather large charity organization, of which he's giving most of his money to (he's pledged $100bn, but since the dot.com bust he's not worth quite that much).

Anybody care to explain to me why a fucking word processor needs a web browser to open files? How in the world does this improve my word processing experience? For the love of Christ, it's text with format coding, not Goddamn software for landing the fucking space shuttle.

RedImperator wrote:Anybody care to explain to me why a fucking word processor needs a web browser to open files? How in the world does this improve my word processing experience? For the love of Christ, it's text with format coding, not Goddamn software for landing the fucking space shuttle.

Microsoft's motto must be, "Integration, integration, integration."

Just cause integrating some things is good, they must think it's good for everything.

RedImperator wrote:Anybody care to explain to me why a fucking word processor needs a web browser to open files? How in the world does this improve my word processing experience? For the love of Christ, it's text with format coding, not Goddamn software for landing the fucking space shuttle.

The more important question is, "How can you manage to make a Word processor that can actually act as a channel for malicious code?"

Fuck M$.

Durandal wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Anybody care to explain to me why a fucking word processor needs a web browser to open files? How in the world does this improve my word processing experience? For the love of Christ, it's text with format coding, not Goddamn software for landing the fucking space shuttle.

The more important question is, "How can you manage to make a Word processor that can actually act as a channel for malicious code?"

There is tendency to share code these days. That is what DLLs are for. It is possible that the word processor in question uses a function that the browser uses too. Since they both use the same thing the function is put into a DLL instead of being duplicated.

Or it may have something do with COM components. Internet Explorer introduced several new components like the Rebar control, Cool bar etc. If the word processor uses them Internet Explorer must be present on the system.

Then again it may be due to OLE, other aspects of COM like client / server programming etc. No idea about the exact nature of the problem.

Actually, I was referring to Word macros.

Durandal wrote:Actually, I was referring to Word macros.

Those are also implemented via the a set of DLLs which are used elsewere too

Microsoft has found a lovely compromise between putting all your eggs in one basket and keeping them separate: they put them all in separate but interdependent baskets. And then they pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity.

evilcat4000 wrote: There is tendency to share code these days.

Then do CTRL-PASTE on the goddamned code, instead of
doing DLL calls.

MKSheppard wrote:Then do CTRL-PASTE on the goddamned code, instead of
doing DLL calls.

But that increases the executable filesize and means that there's a possibility that the DLL Hell will be lessened!

MKSheppard wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote: There is tendency to share code these days.

Then do CTRL-PASTE on the goddamned code, instead of
doing DLL calls.

Thus defeating the entire purpose of calling libraries.

phongn wrote: Thus defeating the entire purpose of calling libraries.

And thus making the code more stable and less likely to bring
your system down in a flaming mess. Now, I don't mind games
calling DLL libraries, because that's really just a single program,
nothing else will use that AT ALL, but with M$, why do we need to have
the internet browser AND office application both calling from the
same DLL?

MKSheppard wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:There is tendency to share code these days.

Then do CTRL-PASTE on the goddamned code, instead of doing DLL calls.

The whole reason libraries were invented in the first place was to eliminate the necessity for programmers to do this. It'd be hellish for a programmer to have to paste in every bit of code from a library that he wanted to use! Why not just keep rewriting the same function over and over again instead of calling it while we're at it?

It's not shared libraries themselves that are the problem; it's Microsoft's nearly non-existent management of those libraries at the OS level. The old Mac OS never had a problem with shared libraries, neither does OS X, and neither does Linux.

Durandal wrote: It's not shared libraries themselves that are the problem; it's Microsoft's nearly non-existent management of those libraries at the OS level.

I think it has to do with M$ making the DLLs be used by everything at once,
meaning that if one DLL fails, you get catastrophic system failure, as opposed
to simply keeping the DLLs separate, like one set of DLLs for office, one
set for IE, etc, and never shall one program call another program's dlls.