Microsoft Longhorn Delayed 736
skreuzer writes "Microsoft has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship."
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
It <b>should</b> be:
Windows is dying.
No, no, you have it all wrong!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft aren't regular 'deadline'-missers - opting to release sub-par software instead just to reach the deadline.
I'm guessing hardware and licensing deals myself.
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they're just waiting for the economy to get a little bit better. A lot of companies aren't doing so hot right now and probably aren't excited about the prospect of shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to get a new OS for each of their computers.
GMD
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:4, Funny)
No, I just think they need to settle things with Playskool first before they release anything anymore...
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:4, Funny)
Expose is god.
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider the delays in 2003 though. It was delayed repeatedly because, they said, they were getting as many bugs out as possible. I think they were stung pretty bad after the release of XP which was worse than previous Microsoft OS's beta versions. Maybe, for once, they are just trying to do it right. It's not like a Linux disro where they can release version .0001b7 and then update it every month as they get the code finished.
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Interesting)
We were in the XP and 2003 beta, and you are off base. XP was more solid of a release than 2000 even, there were several updates in the first few months but they were based on 'application compatibility' more than anything. (Because of the errors generated when a poorly written app crashed and sent a 'bug report' to Microsoft)
So with these fixes, Microsoft made XP aware of the bugs in the programs instead of forcing the third party manufacturers to rewrite or rerelease fixes to their broken software.
That is why the error reporting tool in XP works so well, is that the OS can be made stronger by fixing and working around bugs in poorly written third party applications.
Windows Server 2003 took longer to release because of the re-written IIS and
Indeed. (Score:5, Informative)
They had plenty of vulnerabilities and many exploits that could have been prevented by patching and such... however, with SQL Slammer, Code Red, and others that had come out, Gates decided, this is it, we have to change some process somewhere. So he overhauled their development process one more time to focus around security in EVERY decision. So they halted development for 6 months, sent every single developer to a school in developing secure code, purchased 200 million in books on secure programming for their developers, and then went back to work. That right there delayed things 6 months alone.
Then, as part of Gates' orders, their next job was a line by line review of every single coded product Microsoft makes. Everything from Windows Server 2003 to the IntelliPoint software. While analyzing that code for common security mistakes, they also founded a new security organization for companies to join to exchange common coding conventions for secure code and publish common mistakes and to allow joint development knowledge to be shared, and hired on 500 people at the company to develop tools that do nothing but scan code. Those tools go out and look at code to find buffer overrun issues (the most common security flaw in existence), and to look for other common security mishaps in code.
After the review, they implemented the changes found therein. Then ran the new tools that by that time were done being developed, then implemented those changes, then got back on track with development and yes, rewrote the IIS layers to be partially built directly into the kernel for substantial performance increase. So with all that happening, the review, the tool development, the changes, the security education and reorganization, there were delays, yes. They got it out and look what it has... Two known vulnerabilities of which BOTH of them are a non-issue out of the box and are in areas that are rarely used.
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Interesting)
No it isn't. Win2k is version 5.0 (as in NT), XP is 5.1. That dot rev means more than a new gui, and 3rd party hardware drivers don't enter into it...it means changes to the kernel. Some of which include:
- larger memory mapped file size
- larger driver and system space
- ability to detach from processes being debugged
- callbacks for file system filter drivers
And a bunch of other stuff listed here:http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/xp
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Blaster worm probably lit a fire under Microsoft to rethink their security practices. At least I hope that's the case.
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Joshua... what are you doing ? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows and Windows NT were supposed to converge after 98/NT 4. They didn't. Finally we have Windows XP, how many years later?
Agreed, latterly they have shipped something on time, rather than delay, but the something more often than not has been another interim release, rather than the product actually PowerPointed several years earlier.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note: I'm obviously using a loose definition of vaporware, as often enough MS does actually eventually produce the product they stated. Usually, it's less than expected, later than expected, and really not worth having waited for. Thankfully games don't interoperate with the OS much or MS would have crushed the PC gaming industry a long time ago.)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's use this opportunity to finish playing catchup and then surpass them. People have been saying Linux is "ready for the desktop" since 1999, and it's just not, at least not with current offerings. Let's get to work!
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of leaving that up to EA?
Re:What's the deal with .NET? (Score:5, Informative)
Windows XP was released before the
The push will be Longhorn (Score:5, Informative)
They're leaving Win32 behind and going full
There are a lot of very major changes going on with Longhorn. I don't blame them for taking their time with this. From hardware acceleration on the desktop to SQL engine integration to revamping everything to run as
Re:The push will be Longhorn (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I have no evidence to disagree with any of your statements. The longer they slip, the more PCs will be able to run a deep
Re:What's the deal with .NET? (Score:4, Informative)
Corrections (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 3.1 was released in April 1992.
Windows for Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 were MAJOR versions, they were released in Oct 1992 and Nov 1993, respectively. Where are the Windows NT entries? v3.51 and v4 certainly major versions (released during 1994).
Windows 98 and 98SE can be considered MAJOR versions (maybe not under the hood, but still...).
Re:Corrections (Score:4, Informative)
I should have said that 1990 was Windows 3.0, not windows 3.1 - you are correct about that being wrong.
But Windows 3.11 and WFW 3.11, even though they introduced some significant new things, they did not introduce a major revision of the OS. It was still the same OS with some important new features, particularly in the networking department.
Even though some consider Win98/se to be major revisions, they were still updates to win95 and did not give a fundamental change in the OS's operation (except for IE integration) and basically built on what was already there. They were significant updates but I do not count them as major revisions.
As to NT, that does not apply here. I'm talking about desktop OSs. Notice that I mentioned that Win2k was the first 32 bit desktop windows. I do know that NT was out there long before win2k came out.
Re:Corrections (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally, NT 3.51 and 4 were intended for use in a server enviornment and not a desktop environment. Neither were "hugely" adopted either; I've never seen anything before NT 4, and I didn't see NT4 very much either.
Win98 & 98SE were major revisions to Win95, but were based on the same fundamental code/technology. As such, 98 and 98SE were not fundamental changes to windows.
Win2k represented the first version of NT that was "good", and was also the first version of NT that was widely used beyond a server role.
The original poster's timeline was correct. Major OS release events from Microsoft generally happen every 5 years.
don't forget the real consequences for the web (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web (Score:5, Funny)
Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web (Score:5, Informative)
That's why they're still releasing patches for IE6.01 but won't go the full nine and integrate tabbed browsing or gestures or any other cool feature because they're holding their breath for Longhorn.
Though, with this timeline they may actually just release IE7, but considering that there are existing IE alternatives [avantbrowser.com], I don't expect any new IE stuff until 2005.
Re:don't forget the real consequences for the web (Score:3, Informative)
Re: doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that many W3C standards are not well designed and are often for things nobody wants. But Microsoft is a participant in the W3C. That means Microsoft is partly responsible for the bloat and redundancy of those standards.
If Microsoft realizes the problems with W3C standards, they should (and could) throw their weight around to change things. For Microsoft to encourage the development of bad standards on the part of the W3C and then not implement it themselves amounts to sabotage.
Ship date (Score:5, Funny)
When the cows come home, obviously.
Theory #1 (Score:5, Funny)
Theory #2 (Score:4, Funny)
They decided to perfect their work
Well, of course thats why.
From back in the day:
"I guess this is why we haven't released windows 98 yet..." Thats Bill Gates at the Windows 98 Preview party back in the day, right after it crashed on him, on stage, for plugging in a scanner.Theory #3 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Theory #1 (Score:4, Funny)
Windows gets delayed, and delayed. Finally, someone from on high decrees that the next version will be named something like...
- Windows 95
- Windows 98
- Windows 00
- Windows Millenium Edition
thus sending a signal as to a timeframe when this release is expected to ship, lest heads roll.Here's looking forward to the release of Windows 21st Century Edition.
They have learned many lessons... (Score:3, Funny)
It's no big deal really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's no big deal really... (Score:5, Funny)
And in 2008, KDE will finally do what Longhorn does.
Uh oh, I better put on my pitchfork-proof-vest.
So software gets delayed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So software gets delayed.... (Score:3, Funny)
You realize we're talking about Microsoft here?
That's Not The Point (Score:5, Interesting)
However... the point here is that Microsoft is creating an incredible window of opportunity here for their competitors. OS X is a better desktop system than Win XP. The open source desktops, perpetually behind, may well have time to catch up. Perhaps more importantly, with no new release of Internet Explorer in the works for the next two or more years, people might start to learn to look for alternatives and download browsers again. We could see a resurgence of competition and innovation in the web browser space -- and we'll probably get more standards compliant browsers in the mix.
In short, yeah, it's great to pillory Microsoft, but the big news here is not the egg on their face. It's the chance to show them up, and take part of their marketshare again, while their product line is aging, their reputation for security is trashed, their licensing policies are painful, I/T budgets are tight, and really, who has actual *affection* left for them anymore?
Error in quote. (Score:4, Funny)
What he really means... "When I'm having my network exploited by obvious vulnerabilities, why does it have to happen on my home machine? Why can't it seamlessly run that vulnerability on the dozen or so machines I have access to that are just sitting there? That's what we hope to bring you in the type of innovation we hope to bring you in the new 'Longhorn' OS."
'My Grid', and 'Grids Close to Me' (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like Microsoft is trying to get on the "Grid Computing" bandwagon, which has been gathering steam ever since the economist [economist.com] ran an article about it. Oracle [oracle.com] and IBM [ibm.com] both have major Grid Computing initiatives, and Microsoft wants to pretend they can play with the Big Dogs in the Server Room.
Imagine once the Microsofties dumb the concept down to the Windows level... the 'My Grid' and 'Grids Close To Me' icons on an ostensibly well-trained admin's desktop... aaaaarrrggghh!
I know (Score:3, Insightful)
!
My thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Less Patches (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the "ability to rapidly introduce changes" can be read "ability to patch." I hope they use the extra time to test the security and operability extensively, to patch holes and problems before they reach the consumer.
It's general knowledge that one should not introduce a broken product to market, nevermind try to cover it with patches. Lets hope they release a fully stitched quilt, rather than rely on customers to make a run to the local fabric store.
Fine with me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just A Coincidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this fact seem to just a little to much of a conincidence? It would make perfect sense for MS to wait untill they can go back to their "old" ways again. That said, it will be a LONG time between product releases, which makes me want to agree with some other posters who have said that this suggests we'll see a Windows XP: Second Edition or something like that.
Microsoft Announces End of Windows Development (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, in Plain English!! (Score:5, Funny)
We made them think they would, but the fine print said they probably wouldn't.
"This is an important consideration that Microsoft's customers take into account when purchasing Software Assurance,
We try to steer around the topic.
which is a long-term, ongoing relationship between Microsoft and its customers, and a great deal of value comes from staying on SA long-term," she said.
As the chef Elzar would say (in an Australian accent): "Try the Microsoft Software Assurance program. It has the biggest profit margin." The great deal of value comes when you give Microsoft money.
Even though I'm using Windows... (Score:4, Informative)
Btw, is anyone else having the problem that burning CDs, and opening CDs without autorun, it never seems to remember the non-MS default that I select (Nero and "do nothing", respectively), even if I check the appropriate box? I'm sure that wouldn't happen if I went down the One Microsoft Way... The question is, will Longhorn finally annoy me enough to make me jump ship? Oh well maybe I'll have to wait a year longer for the answer. Boo-hoo.
Kjella
Re:Even though I'm using Windows... (Score:4, Insightful)
The desktop will be hardware accelerated DirectX, so eyecandy won't slow things down.
More "protection from myself".
People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?
More Messenger, WMP and goodness what else providing "integrated Windows features that can't be removed and keep nagging you".
How do they keep nagging you? I don't ever use WMP, and I removed Messenger at least a year ago.
I'm not having your CD problem at all. I'm using the latest Nero 6.
Re:Even though I'm using Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not his point, he's suggesting that the new version is eyecandy - not extra functionability. When I use XP I immediatly goto the "classic" theme and make it show the standard desktop icons just to be able to use the damn thing. I certainly am not alone in that regard.
>People always play this card without citing a single example in XP. Can you?
The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen. The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important.
>How do they keep nagging you?
Here's a default Dell computer with Office. Try to just close, let alone remove, messenger. "Sorry, another program is using this." Umm, who? Its outlook, but it won't tell you that. So for millions of people it sits there wasting RAM because they can't close it. More WMP means more browser intgration and DRM. Some people don't like that.
>I'm not having your CD problem at all.
This problem is fairly common and a few good google searches brings up a few solutions.
Regardless, I have yet to see a good reason to move from 2000 to XP. System restore is tempting but not needed. When technophobes ask me why they can't just get Windows 2000, which they know pretty well, on their new computer I tell them its because Microsoft doesn't want them to. Learn XP or find your old 2K CD.
The same could be true for Longhorn, the desktop model of computing is actually pretty simple and more bloat and pretty colors doesn't help - it hinders. I'd rather see effort put into the applications than the OS. Ideally, the OS shouldn't be the selling point, the apps should be. Pretty colors and 3D shouldn't be applauded, good HCI practices should be.
Re:Even though I'm using Windows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, and there were people who said the same thing about Windows 95 and the "Windows 3.1 look" option that it offered. "I'll never change" they declared. But eventually Microsoft will deprecate the old look and you'll be forced to change.
Every generation goes through the same phases. New and shiny. I'll never change. Remember the good old days. You're in stage 2.
Software Assurance (Score:5, Insightful)
XP came out within 2 years of 2K but now they look like 4 years from XP to the next version. I remember some analysts at the time were saying that Software Assurance only was good value if upgrades came out more often than once every 3 years. Now it looks like it would have been cheaper to not buy Software Assurance and just re-buy a new license when the new version becomes available. Or use an OS with less restrictive licensing ;-)
Cheers
VikingBrad
Needs a Better Name (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of calling it "Longhorn",
I think they should call it "Shorthair",
as in the phrase,
"We've got you by the short hairs now."
Re:Needs a Better Name (Score:5, Funny)
So now I have to wear this tin hat and shave my balls? Christ, Linux is not improving my odds with the ladies. Maybe I should get a mac now.
Slight change in business, no big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect to see a lot of other smaller, less significant Microsoft software hitting shelves in the next two years (at least twice as much as usual) while Microsoft targets the datacenter with their R&D budget, and outfits like SCO with their legal purse.
Take as long as you want, Microsoft. (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO, Win2k is the best OS that Microsoft has ever made.
not that that is saying much ;)
That's fine but... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you improve? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think Windows 2000 Professional is a damn fine operating system. I run it at home and my workplace has standardized with 2K.
XP Pro added nothing of note except more onerous licensing conditions and a confusing UI change. Everyone I've met who uses XP changed the UI back to Windows 2000. Also, the only reason they use XP over 2K is because XP came with their new, name brand computer.
Really, what does Microsoft add to, change about, or remove from its desktop operating system to make it worth upgrading?
Re:How do you improve? (Score:5, Informative)
People misunderstand Windows XP (Score:5, Insightful)
XP is geared for home users, though they offer Professional because it does lend improvements over 2k that warrant it being used for workstations.
Too bad there is no futures markets on software (Score:4, Funny)
And please don't tell me yet again about how economists point out that markets can't predict anything. Nattering nabobs indeed.
Moreover, if we had a futures market on software shipments, then we, as users and managers could lessen risk of software delay or software bugs by buying hedging options.
A futures market in software would also let unemployed, overly expensive, middle-aged with families, but otherwise wise programmers leverage the outsourcing trend. Whether the software is made here or there, certain factors creating delays, etc. will be present and us older and wiser programmers would be able to use our years of experience to arbitrage the market.
Futures markets -- why must our overlords keep us from them?
Copy Apple's Strategy (Score:4, Interesting)
Should Microsoft call it Visual Linux#.NET or OS XP?
I think this time... (Score:5, Insightful)
They will find a significant drop in sales afterward though... people will be unwilling to upgrade if their systems are stable, bug free and secure. It is against their business model to write secure code.
They'll have to come up with a new way to keep people buying Microsoft... who knows what it will be.
Longhorn's probably not vaporware though... more likely they realize after all the crap MS OSs have been through lately... what with being on the top news for being vulnerable, unreliable and close to being the weak point of civilization itself, I guess they are rethinking that "business as usual isn't the play to make this time around."
Do you know what makes people stop using WinNT 4.0? NOTHING. It works well for businesses. Active directory? People STILL don't know what it is or what it's for or how it can improve the way they do business. MS drops support for it and people will STILL continue using it. What terrible thing will happen to Microsoft when they create a secure and stable OS? We know they can -- they have the money to throw at it and if they are willing to delay release of their newest OS project, then I'd take that as a sign they intend to make it secure and stable.
I'd say that CAN do it and they WILL do it. But the question that rings in my mind is what doom it will spell to Microsoft when they do. No more upgrades for a long time... people won't want it or care about it. That's a huge chunk of income for them.
Re:I think this time... (Score:4, Funny)
So what will be the kicker? Perhaps they will push a subscription based model? You can only rent the software, no buying allowed?
Perhaps with Bill & Co selling stock (according to Yahoo [yahoo.com], it looks like Bill dumped ~$309 million worth of MSFT in August) with Bill's plans of being completely sold out by 2006 (or 2008? forgot which..) he is planning on "doing the right thing" and releasing a solid, secure operating system.
Or perhaps the feeling is that quite frankly, the PC in its current form is well umm.. too overly complex and cumbersome. Perhaps with things like tablet PC, wireless broadband, etc, there will be a shift toward application specific embedded platforms and desktop PCs as they exist now are on their way out (I doubt by 2008
What can they really do? (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't integrate much more for risk of annoying the DOJ, all I can see them improving on is the security side of things.
Re:What can they really do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Duh! The beta testing on XP isn't finished yet (Score:5, Funny)
When It's Ready!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Delay is good (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that the reason they are delaying Longhorn is because of all the bad hype they have received this past week. They are beginning to realize that people now are concerned about security. When they have to pay someone like myself $45.00 an hour to remove a stupid worm from their computers, they are pissed. They want to know why this is happening to them, and it is getting easier to explain to them that the Windows code is swiss cheese, since they hear it being confirmed on the 6 o'clock news.
Microsoft is obviously delaying the release due to the fact that they had shit for security in the code they posses now, and they are bringing it to the table to clean it up.
A man can have dreams, can't he?
You know what that means? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course this is just wishful thinking. I'm sure they'll do something diabolical in the meantime. Maybe they feel like there's enough money to be made yet by the use of licensing press gangs. "You WILL sign up, or we'll sue you into the ground, you dirty corporate pirates!"
What features are "Major" except for hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
So what could possibly be Major? Yet more restrictive DRM?, A new driver model that sends all the HW vendors to hit the bottle? Eh?
If I were deeply cynical which of course I'm not I'd say that 'delays' such as they are are keyed to the symbiotic relationship they have to Intel. When/if Intel bakes a new batch of chips they need to sell suddenly a 'new' version of Windows will come along to 'need' them.
Major improvements - don't underestimate!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Do not underestimate the power of several thousand quality developers fueled by several billions of dollars. They've hired out creme of the crop in the dotcom bust phase and now their workforce is better and more dedicated than ever.
If they're willing to adjust the schedules on top of that, the resulting product may really be scary good.
tell me about it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Funny)
but sp2 will break my copy of xp!!!
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Funny)
but sp2 will break my copy of xp!!!
Ho my God! You forgot to close the whine tag! All the rest of slashdot will be whining! (Like we're not used to it.) See, it's allready started!
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Insightful)
1. New up2date available with updated SSL certificate authority file
I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.
2. Updated Sendmail packages fix vulnerability.
I've never set up a mail server. This patch does not apply to me.
3. Updated pam_smb packages fix remote buffer overflow.
I do use samba, so I guess I'll download this one.
4. GDM allows local user to read any file.
I've used XDM but generally I prefer to boot to a console. This patch does not apply to me.
5. Updated unzip packages fix trojan vulnerability
I guess I could download this one because I probably do have unzip installed, but I can't remember ever using it. Wake me when there's a vulnerability in gzip.
6. Updated Evolution packages fix multiple vulnerabilities
Call me crazy, but I use Mozilla's email client.
What's the point to all of this? Redhat doesn't need a "service pack" because most of the security vulnerabilities do not affect the majority of their users. You can't compare Redhat's patch list to XPs. If you want to make it fair, compare Redhat to the sum of XP, Office, IIS, SQL Server, and whatever else. I think you'll find that XP has a lot more critical issues all by itself and when you add the application software you'll see why the idea of a service pack makes sense in the MS world but not in the Linux world.
Re:tell me about it (Score:5, Informative)
I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.
FYI, if you don't get the above update, up2date will not run anymore
Re:tell me about it (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never used SSL. I've used Apache but I've never needed SSL. This patch does not apply to me.
Wrong. You DO need this patch. It's used to connect to the up2date server (your SSL connection between you and RedHat). 2. Updated Sendmail packages fix vulnerability.
I've never set up a mail server. This patch does not apply to me.
True, but some distros have sendmail enabled (whether you set it up or not). Make sure it's turned off or you could run into trouble.
Wake me when there's a vulnerability in gzip.
There was a zlib vulnerability about a year ago.
I will agree with you that a service pack is unnecessary. RedHat will release version 9.1 (or 10) in due time, in less time than it takes for MS to release a service pack.
huge differnce (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:huge differnce (Score:5, Interesting)
IIS is produced by microsoft
IE is produced by microsoft
ASP is produced by microsoft
linux is not produced by rh
apache is not produced by rh
mozilla is not produced by rh
php is not produced by rh
each of the individual groups are responsible for the software they produce. Microsoft is responsible for any security flaws in xp and all the xp you mentioned above. No two of the open source projects mentioned above are maintained by the same group... there is no one person responsible for all of them.
The microsoft apps however and their flaws are all the result of the shoddy programming from one shoddy company.
rh doesn't claim mozilla and php are part of the OS. Microsoft DOES claim IE and ASP are. rh doen't claim apache is part of the OS. Microsoft does claim IIS is. Of course none of these applications are part of the OS (even IE isn't, the OS is the kernel not even the shell qualifies), but microsoft claims they are so it can tie them into it's monopoly and gain a monopoly in those areas either. If they can't take the heat that come with that they should get out of the kitchen.
This is all ridiculous though, the number of patches released for a product are no gauge of how secure or insecure it is... the obviousness of though holes and damaged caused by them are, I think it's fairly clear who wins in this competition.
Re:huge differnce (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bundled with windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Also if you install Windows 2003 and know where to look you can actually find a C# compiler, email server, SQL database engine, etc. etc.
I have installed Windows Server 2003. It came with 0 lines of source code compared to over a GB of source code that came with Red Hat 9, so as far as I am concerned Windows has no source code at all.
2003 came with an SMTP service, but no mail server. Red Hat 9 came with both POP, IMAP mail servers and SMTP services. I haven't checked for the C# compiler, but I know MS gives that away free as part of the
As far as a SQL database engine, maybe. But is that available for use in developing database backed applications? I sure haven't seen any indication of that.
Basically the number of patches issued is about as meaningless an indicator of code quality as number of lines of code per day is a measure of productivity.
Perhaps there is some validity to that statement. I will have to think about it.
Yet another explanation could be that more people use XP so more people find code paths that have bugs.
I think that if you argue that XP has many times the number of lines of source code that Red Hat has, you will have to accept that it also has many times the number of bugs unless you can convince me that MS somehow magically writes higher quality code than everyone else. Since we already know that products like Windows 95 have bug rates per LOC comparable to industry norms, I think you are going to have to come up with some pretty good arguments for this proposition.
Re:huge differnce (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why when refering to the operating system please call it by the name the author chose for it, LINUX. GNU/Linux is a name made up by someone who writes applications which have a port to the Linux operating system.
The reason microsoft gets a few choice applications thrown in is that THEY insist they are part of THEIR operating system. That doesn't make an application like a web browser part of the linux operating system.
For another thing, all of the security holes and bugs in those programs lay at microsoft's feet, they aren't merely bundled by microsoft, they are written by the same shoddy programmers who write the rest of it.
Microsoft has gone further than call those applications part of the operating system, they've made sure you cannot reasonably remove them (no getting rid of media player shortcuts doesn't qualify as REMOVEING it.). With linux there is no application including the GUI itself that I can't remove... since there is actually an option whether or not to install this or that web browser, then those applications stand on their own merit and don't group together as linux. A bug in Mozilla only affects mozilla users (windows or linux mozilla users generally), a bug in IE affects every windows user because they can't get rid of IE even if they want to.
Furthermore, according to mr gates 1/3 of winxp systems crash more than 3 times daily due to bugs in the OPERATING SYSTEM... and that's just the ones who use the error reporting service.
It's not too late to get out of this pit, you can start using your mind today and find the link (i'll give you a hint, it was covered by slashdot) to the interview in which he gave those numbers all by yourself
Re:huge differnce (Score:5, Insightful)
According to microsoft these programs are part of the core OS. They also aren't removeable, even if you want to use a different email client, webbrowser, or media player, you can't get rid of them. Since you can't remove them from the core OS, their bugs are and should be grouped in with it.
"IMHO, the only thing that could possibly rectify this situation is a new code-base, from the ground up."
I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go. They should contract someone else to write it as well. They also need a new development model... and the only way they'll be able to use that new development model is to figure out a new business model. Somehow I suspect none of this will happen though
Closed source doesn't make them more secure, it merely makes it take longer for the peer review... and most of the peers reviewing have no intention of telling microsoft when they find holes.
Re:tell me about it (Score:4, Interesting)
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
That's because MSDOS doesnt have any native networking in the default install. Troll.
Re:No big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No big deal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Methinks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on guys...
Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather, it's the executives telling investors "oh yeah, it'll be done in a year and a half," then turning to the engineers saying "alright, you have to get this done in a year and a half or we loose a LOT of money, and YOU may loose your JOB if that happens."
It's good to see Microsoft delaying a release date rather than rushing the engineers to do things sub-par to meet a quota or deadline.
Re:This is one of the worst posts I've seen. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the delays also raise a potential problem for Microsoft. Those customers who subscribe to its Licensing 6 and Software Assurance program expect access to the next upgrade of Microsoft products
"If you bought Software Assurance this year or last, under a three-year contract, what if the product upgrades don't come out by the time your contract expires and you don't get an upgrade out of the deal?" Gillen asked.
That is one reason Microsoft has been evolving Softw
Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the problem they are having is there is no nice piece of tech *to* hold back.
Dave
Re:What technology are they going to hold hostage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry that you can't fill out ??? now - you will be able to replace ??? with some new technology in two or three years when it appears, and blame MS for not supporting it in OS which was released 3-5 years before the technology.
After all, NT was released long before first USB devices appeared on the market, and Windows 2000 released long before first HT-enabled processors appeared (although contrary to the parent HT works under W2K - after all it is hardware feature, not softwa
Longhorn won't require 3D (Score:5, Informative)
This is all covered at WinSuperSite [winsupersite.com], by the way, in the "Road To Longhorn" articles. Whether or not you like Paul Thurrott, he has the sources in Microsoft to get actual information on future versions of Windows.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
What NT needs from Posix is the uniform filename space. This could be done by migrating some of the innards "kernel names" to the FileOpen interface so any normal program can use this and access "unions" or whatever they call them. This would get rid of drive letters and allow at least a form of symbolic link, these are by far the biggest defects in NT from my perspective.
They also need to allocate all communication channels from the same pool of "fd" numbers and fix their damn select mechanism so that it accepts all of them (it is ok if they always report ready or never report ready, but it is inexcusable that I need to send different things to different interfaces).
I would also like them to return '/' from all their interfaces that return pathnames, and to make filenames be raw byte streams rather than a piece of the GUI (ie eliminate case-independence and wide-character interfaces) but these are probably hopeless. (and the case-independent disease has now invaded OSX Unix so we are probably doomed)
A real fork would be nice too.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
NT already has a unified namespace, the object manager namespace, which the filesystem is a subset of. IIRC, the path 'C:\WINNT\' is translated into \??\C\WINNT, and \??\C is a symbolic link to \Device\Harddisk0\Parition0, translating it into \Device\Harddisk0\Parition0\WINNT internally.
NT also has the equivalent of UNIX file descriptors, HANDLEs. Instead of select, you have WaitForMultipleObjects. And unlike POSIX select which can only wait on files and sockets, you can wait on practically anything in NT: files, sockets, semaphores, events, timers, etc...
NT isn't UNIX. Don't try to use it like UNIX and you'll tear out a lot less hair.