Page 2 - Microsoft Seeks Questions on Security

You maybe. It was, however, Codergeek I was disagreeing with; as
we all know he couldn't care less about MS's reasons for anything.

I have no problem with this usage of proprietary formats when the formats are truly new and revolutionary. It leaves the competitive edge and encourages people to use your software.

My beef is after the format is old hat, that it's still held on to. .WMV is still a prooprietary format even though MPG4 (or whatever the latest codec is) is smaller, and more detailed than anything else out there... yet .wmv (and .rm for that matter) are still closed formats. There's no reason for it, the era has passed... open up the format, and allow people to use it how you want. The extra $.0001 per person in royalties isn't worth taking a beating on your public image. Especially as people slowly start to transition over anyway.

-MBirchmeier
PS(@coder) as for blaming someone that's fine, but what good does it do... we've got to live with it either way.

Nope, he's our #1 heckler.
And for the record Apple is the the epitomy of proprietary software development IMHO.
takers?

I'm not trying to explain how bad they are! I'm simply trying to explain my perspective on why they will never release their source code.

What? I do care about the reasoning behind things they do. If I didn't I'd still be using Windows on my desktop at home. *sigh*

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! TAKE HIM AWAY!

--Jimmy Gosling (head of the national Rebel Alliance and Traitor Detection Agency RATDA)

It's hard to have a constructive discussion with virulent anti-microsoft rebels who have never used sharepoint, exchange server and IE in an intranet environment, AD, gpo's and all the other features of sophisticated microsoft systems that leave open source far behind in the dust.

If we talk about linux OS, lets start with the cruddy way you have to install software and the continual dependency problems. Reminds me of the old joke "if builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, one woodpecker would destroy civilization".

The microsoft MSI installer is light-years ahead of any open-source equivalent. NTFS is a superior filesystem. MS applications are generally better than the open-source alternates.

I think most of the rabid OS advocates are that way because they had to spend so much time, and pain and agony, to get their *nix system running that they can't stand anyone else not having to go through the same process.

$000000000000000000000.02

Ahhh, welcome to the fray. This is a little more what I was looking for. Now leaving behind the obvious emotional comments, let's get down to the meat.

NTFS. I have general seen the file system as a pain in the ***, but then again I don't know file systems. Why is it better?
On the side of the MSI installer. I seldom see any anything using it, and yes, *nix software can be a pain in the ***, rpms are the closest I think we have to anything like it, but there is also a lot more control over to the installation.

As for converting the world over to *nix, no I don't see it happening. I love being part of the few running the OS, but I also want to make it better for myself by fighting for it's better acceptance and a more open world around it. That's easy to do when I see traits in it that I would like to see in other systems as well. Insulting windows security to me isn't about telling you to hop ship and join, it's about working to better secure our network so that it doesn't become a safe haven for black hats who will in turn use it to attack my system.

Consider my buttons pushed, Gosling. While I love apple and their products, you are *sigh*, very correct here... If they had the market share of Gates and his gang, the battle cries would be directed toward Jobs & friends.

Now, that being said -- Apple may try to get you to use their products and only their products ala Sony, but they do not leverage market share and market dependance to virtually force the consumer to use their products. MSoft does this and has been convicted of doing this. Now, if Apple were in MSoft's position, would they do this? Probably. Should a company in MSoft's position do this? For the greater good of science, technology, and the advancement of software worldwide, NO. For the benefit of EPS (Earnings Per Share) YES.

MSoft is a public company -- their goal is not a better earth, a better society, a better piece of software, it is plain and simple, EPS. Only a not-for-profit company/community can have the former goal of technological innovation, better software, and a better world.

This is why Open Source technonlogies are so scary to MSoft, IBM, Apple, SUN, and other big dogs in the software market. This is why many companies have started to usher in an age of Open Source advocacy, most notably SUN and IBM. They all realize the potential of software development outside the demands of Earnings Per Share. If it weren't for the very tangible potential of Open Source solutions taking over the world's software market, these companies wouldn't be trying to get on board -- For them, embracing a bit of Open Source is going to help them increase EPS. Microsoft has even made a few strides in this realm, but they have generally been in more denial than other firms. This may end up seriously biting them in the a$$.

I don't know what I just typed - does it make any sense? I'm going blind I think.

Codergeek, first of all, the world needs more people with your sense of loyalty and drive for what feels right. You are a tech evangelist, and no one can take that away from you and the hordes of others who are literally *preaching* the gospel of open source.

I myself feel the way Coder does -- It's not: "Hey Msoft! What have you done for me lately?" its more - "Hey MSoft! What have you done for the droves of users & for that matter, the world lately?"

It's an altruists point of view he preaches. It's the same point of view that builds houses for homeless people, volunteers at a childrens' hospital, or collects provisions for the people who suffered the recent Tsunami. Open Source, in a somewhat skewed way, is a sincere form of social activism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a programmer will often view programming as an art, an ultimate labor of love. In the Open Source community, the art of programming is heeded and respected, never to fall from sight. The unpaid workhorses of SourceForge projects and the like are producing the most innovative code around - solving the smallest and largest of issues without compensation. This method of software development aims at making better software - something that MSoft (and other companies just like it) have not only lost sight of, but neglected in favor of EPS.

So I say, preach on Rev. Codergeek.

Hey, it just wouldn't be fair if I wasn't pushing some buttons on the apple side of things. Glad to see we have the 3rd OS super power playing in the game. In a way I hope that takes away from the direct pitting of the two camps against eachother.

It's interesting to see how these three companies have developed and how they go after that EPS (as nox noted).

Apple - closed architecture. We write our code, we write it for our own hardware. You don't touch you just use

Windows - open architecture. We write the code that's going to work with as much software as it can. This is usually the case, but sometimes the performance can degrade.

Linux - very open architecture. If it has a switch it can run linux. You bring the hardware, you write the code. The OS for the hard core in many ways.

From this point of view (and I'm no apple fanatic, but I'm also no apple hater) I can see how apple has it a bit easier, they know what their working with. Like you said, they push those standards and if you don't meet them, take it somewhere else, you can't even use it here. When that's the case, yeah, it should definitly work and it should work well. You have to admit this is not always the case though.

Windows has a much bigger area to cover and when things don't work as wll as they do for apple non technical people can get very angry. Well tell you what, if your so unhappy, write you own.

And that's where *nix came in I feel. It was kind of the challenge taken up. Write my own huh? alright, here we go. It's come a long way, it has a long way to go. There is no support, it usually takes a lot of effort for a noob to get things working on their system, but when their done, they get the bragging rights and what I feel personally is a better running, more efficient system where the user directs the OS, and not the other way around.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...In comparison to FAT32 it's better because it uses metadata journalling (thereby guaranteeing the consistency of the filesystem, though not necessarily the individual files) and it uses B-trees internally to store the file information, which means less fragmentation. It also internally stores things in Unicode. This is all according to WikiPedia...
That's because Windows systems are very homongenous: you know there are certain libraries and versions, etc. on each of them so a simple installer is all that is needed. However, *nix is much more fluid in this regard, which is why things like RPM and the more robust (imho) package managers like Debian's apt/dpkg and Gentoo's Portage system exist.

Personally I don't like the 'balance of power' right now between Mac, MS, and Linux, but it could be a lot worse.

Ideally I think i'd like to see marketshare wise MS:Mac:Linux about a 30:30:40 share... why? because open source might allow better for improvement, but for profit / closed source breeds for better innovation.

Innovation is expensive. When trying something new for the first time, it's going to be difficult, and require a lot of effort. Most coders are going to want to be compensated for their effort, and thus keep these revoultionary techniques closed source.

It's also good to have competition, to keep each other on their toes, two differing models, approaches and techniques, then let the customer decide which is better.

Then opensource can take these cutting edge techniques that work, break them down, open them up, release similar code, and allow the community to add, alter, or update them as they see fit. But I feel the innovation in the open source community isn't going to be as dedicated to innovation as any closed source for profit company.

-MBirchmeier