Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:PROOF! (Score 2, Interesting) 284

by Slothrup (#30392030) Attached to: Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool

This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"

Having been involved with open source at Microsoft, I'd guess that the real reason for the delay was to "scrub" it to make sure that no intellectual property was inadvertently being given away.

Comment: Re:Some other interesting results... (Score 1) 582

by Slothrup (#28972181) Attached to: Bing Search Tainted By Pro-Microsoft Results

When you search for words, you get hits with words. If you want to search for phrases, put the words in quotes. When I search for the phrase "Windows worse than OSX", I only get one hit on both Google and on Bing -- so it's no surprise that this single site isn't found in all of the hits for pages that contain each of the words "Windows" "worse" "than" "OSX"

Comment: Re:The bigger problem... (Score 1) 338

by Slothrup (#28707745) Attached to: Bill Gates Puts Classic Feynman Lectures Online

regarding Bill's comments on it being a bad idea for Google to have two OS's (Chrome and Android)... MS HAS MORE THAN ONE OS, DUMBSHIT! Is Gates so out of touch that he thinks that win mobiles run Vista?

While that was probably the right decision at the time it was made (Windows CE is over ten years old, after all), I think that most people here at MS would do it differently if creating a new mobile OS today.

Comment: Re:Only Half the Story (Score 3, Insightful) 578

by Slothrup (#28301585) Attached to: Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled

It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.

It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.

Comment: Re:Think about it (Score 0) 486

by Slothrup (#27968745) Attached to: Microsoft To Banish Memcpy()

C is not a safe language, and stupid programmers will always find ways to mess it up. There are safer languages where you can't hang yourself as easily, and if you don't understand C, you should use them.

The idea that smart people don't make mistakes is thoroughly ridiculous.

Because everyone is not just going to add a line of code to one of the base headers:
#define memcpy(dst, len, src) memcpy_s((dst),(len),(src),(len))

Smart people recognize that they make mistakes, so they create systems that help them catch and prevent their own mistakes. If you're foolish enough to believe that you can't make mistakes, then you should just turn off all the warnings on the compiler and not bother with lesser workarounds like redefining a single symbol.

Comment: Think about it (Score 0) 486

by Slothrup (#27968003) Attached to: Microsoft To Banish Memcpy()

Some of these reactions are quite funny.

The goal of asking you to specify the length of the destination buffer is to force you to think about the data you're working with *while* you're writing the code and not afterwards in an unconnected security audit. Furthermore, it provides documentation to other people reading the code who may not have the same mental model of what's going on as you do. And as usual "other people" includes you, six months after you wrote the code.

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.

Working...