re:Weird Similarities

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

What stands or falls is you reputation as a businessman not your
reputation as a craftsman. When Clade Butler started out his frames
got a good reputation because he was known to employ the best
builders, people like Fred Dean, George Stratton, and Les Ephgrave
who later went on to found their own shops. Not because anyone
believed he built them all himself.

People don't say "I'm not using him for my joinery, he employs bad
craftsmen.". They say "I'm not using him, his work is bad."!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. Maybe you're not. What, pray tell, is a "New Startup human
Organisation"? Would that be a business? Next question;

Nope. Not unless you count other forms of organisation, armies,
bureacracries of all sorts, as businesses. "New start up" meaning
there's no pre-existing organisational infrastructure.

Given that wars are often profit making, it could easily be argued that
armies are businesses, but that's an aside.

AFAICT then, you are arguing that a new organisation could not create a
large product. This is not even borne out by your dear friends at MS who
created an entirely new self-governed group to create the New Technology
that would move the company on. In fact, you seem to suggest that no new
products of any significance can be created by anyone other than the
existing giants of the software world. If I haven't understood your
argument correctly then please elaborate because this is frankly
ridiculous!

Quoted message said:

what makes you

Quoted message said:

think that MS make software changes to keep Intel happy? Given that
their most publicised relationships were with AMD & Cyrix (Check the MS
branding on late-90s Intel-clone chips.

They need to constantly upgrade for purely commercial reasons.

Shall we try that question again? What makes you think that MS make
software changes to keep Intel happy? You stated this, not me.

Quoted message said:

Aside from the Net most of the major Apps matured around the mid 80's.

The Net is not an application.

Quoted message said:

Everyone knows that. So you really think Bill should have stopped at
Word 2, laid off all the workforce and contracters, and retired ?

Until Windoze 95, the M$ OSes did not incorporate any form of multi-
threading. Indeed this was the major selling point of W95. I presume
that you wouldn't consider this to be a maturation.

In fact, to claim that "most of the major Apps matured around the mid
80's" would suggest that you know very little about the software that
you are currently using. Given that the first version of Windoze to have
any major impact on end-users was Windoze 3.0 and was not released until
1990, I'd love to know what maturation you feel did not take place past
1985.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Finally, on what basis do you make the claim that it is impossible to
make software without holes?

I think this NewsGroup's resident nerds can answer that for you rather
better than I would care to do. ISTR its something to do with the problem
of trying to devise provable theorems or algorithms.

So you can't actually suggest a reason why software will always have
holes in it? In terms of devising provable theorems or algorithms, most
mathematicians are already aware of provable optimum algorithms for many
purposes. Indeed, it is possible to by books which contain details of
many such algorithms to cover many different applications such as data
sorting to hidden line calculations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Holes occur through bad planning and bad
coding. The overflow holes which have plagued recent releases of Windoze
are often the result of sloppy memory management. Is it possible for a
car manufacturer to build a car that doesn't suffer from random engine
failures, or incompatibility with certain roads?

I don't really think you have any comprehension of the totally different
orders of magnitude in complexity which can exist between mechanical
systems and software. Its the same reason why software can never keep
pace with hardware.

I don't really think you have any comprehension of software engineering
or programming in general. You seem to consider it to be a magical thing
(Possibly you were mislead by the proliferation of "Wizards" in M$
software).

Quoted message said:

Software offers almost limitless possibilities, cars in general don't.

But engineering in general does. So again, if we can build a car that
has known failure scenarios involving wear and tear, but no random
unforseen catastrophic failures, why is the same not true of software?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do so many people
take it for granted that software will be problem-ridden when
they'd cry havoc over the similar problems in physical objects?

Because they understand something you don't.

Or they view it as a magical thing rather than something tangible and
comprehensible. If there is some grand issue of comprehension that I'm
sailing past here, please do take the time to correct me, since I
presume that you also possess this understanding of which you speak.

Quoted message said:

Anyway if they wait for the software to mature* before rushing
off to PC World maybe, they won't be so disappointed.

* Sufficient for all the workarounds** to have filterd through onto
NewsGroups

** Workaround: Using your brain to get the best out of software written
to unrealistic deadlines. Or uncooperative hardware.

Software errors are not the result of hardware failures. They are the
result of bugs. That those bugs are prevalent is due to the fallability
of humans combined with bad project management (Insufficient time
allowed for testing and correction, bad initial planning etc.).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This would presumably be a guarded reference to Linux (and other
*NIXes). To answer that, check the number of coders who regularly
contribute code to the basic kernel and driver code for Linux. Linux is
not hole free, but it is possible for any user (with the knowledge) to
locate them, and there is an army of geeks who frequently do. The holes
also tend to require more computer knowledge than that possessed of the
average script kiddie and are thus exploited less frequently.

Totally wrong.

Do tell!

Quoted message said:

By definition all Open Source needs to be far better documented
than does proprietory software. And so is potentially far more
vulnerable.

Why? No extra documentation is required for the end user, and if the
source of any code is badly documented than that will present problems
for the developers, be they a collection of online nerds, or the well-
paid programmers at M$.

Quoted message said:

The only thing which protects Open Source from hacker attacks
is the tiny user base - other than at Server level - and the
perceived nerdiness of the potential targets.

Wrong, but keep going.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing intrinsic in the code itself.

Wrong again.

Quoted message said:

All code is riddled with holes if anyone looks at it long enough.

And again.

Quoted message said:

Its simply with OS there's no real incentive for anyone to bother,
as its the PCWorld set who are the target of choice.

Not even sure what you mean here, but probably "Wrong"!

The reason that UN*X bugs are not often exploited is to do with
homogenity of code (A variety of versions running simultaneously) and
the fact that an inherently stable / secure core design is harder to
attack and requires more skill to do so, than one where stability and
security have been tacked on afterwards as a boilerplate repair.

Compare and contrast.

UN*X - A multi-user OS from the start with the necessary frameworks for
good security management.

WFW - A multi-user OS by name where such multi-user abilities were
forced onto a framework that did not (And could not) support them.

W9x - A core upgrade, but still single-user. See WFW

This is not a good track record. Things have improved with the NT
series, but are still let down by bad programming practices and bad bug
management. M$ admit to practising "Security by Obscurity", a technique
renowned for being [censored]!

Quoted message said:

It's inevitable. Thats the nature of software in combination
with marketing and deadlines

So if you remove the marketing and deadlines (OSF anyone?), you remove
the a great deal of the potential for bugs. Glad to see that you have
finally come around to a sensible perspective.

Quoted message said:

Good for you. You could also throw away the computer completely
and go and live in a hut on top of a mountain if you wanted to.

I could do, but this would prevent me from doing the work I do that
relates to computers, where as the OS jump will not.

Quoted message said:

Its a free world.

It is indeed.

Quoted message said:

The analogy there would be with the SUV manufacturer not the driver.

Not really.

I have a choice.
I choose something which in some ways makes my life difficult.
I complain about it.

The above is valid for both your comments, and the analogy I proposed.

Quoted message said:

Whatever the point it was you were trying to make

So you claim that the analogy was invalid, _and_ that you don't
understand it. For a special bonus prize, please elaborate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not really. An accurate, honest and quite complimentary appraisal of Man
Gates' impact on the world.

Quoted message said:

There might be monopoly freedom of speech issues if it weren't for
the fact of the beneficial impact on technology and software
prices i.e PC's for everyone - of having an albeit second best -
but then aren't they always - imposed and agreed Windoze Standard.

?

Quoted message said:

Plus Bill still looks after his own. All the 95 stuff is all still
there on the Knowledge Base if you know where to look.

Yes. You use Google because M$ can't even search their own site as well
as an independant search engine! Better information is often to be found
outside the Knowless Base and can thus be located at the same time. Bill
looks after his own (Programmers) and is an admirable man in many
respects. His general attitudes to money and to the way he treats his
staff are well above the standards often seen elsewhere.

But his products suck! :-)

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

People don't say "I'm not using him for my joinery, he employs bad
craftsmen.". They say "I'm not using him, his work is bad."!

Not necessarily. They might say I'll only ever use Jones providing
he promises to send Smith to do the work. Apparently some people
insist their cars are fixed by certain mechanics in some workshops.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. Maybe you're not. What, pray tell, is a "New Startup human
Organisation"? Would that be a business? Next question;

Nope. Not unless you count other forms of organisation, armies,
bureacracries of all sorts, as businesses. "New start up" meaning
there's no pre-existing organisational infrastructure.

Given that wars are often profit making, it could easily be argued that
armies are businesses, but that's an aside.

AFAICT then, you are arguing that a new organisation could not create a
large product. This is not even borne out by your dear friends at MS

I never said that. Its not borne out by MS, full stop.

I said they were unlikely to produce a large product which was
perfect. More especialy first time. Possibly if hardware had
stopped dead in its tracks in 1990 or whenever, they might have
improved it by now to a standard as might meet your approval.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what makes you

Quoted message said:

think that MS make software changes to keep Intel happy? Given that
their most publicised relationships were with AMD & Cyrix (Check the

MS

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

branding on late-90s Intel-clone chips.

They need to constantly upgrade for purely commercial reasons.

Shall we try that question again? What makes you think that MS make
software changes to keep Intel happy? You stated this, not me.

They work in tandem. The introduction and licensing system of
Win XP gave a great boost to hardware manufacturers all round.

Are you saying Intel were exempt from this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aside from the Net most of the major Apps matured around the mid 80's.

The Net is not an application.

No but browsers are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Everyone knows that. So you really think Bill should have stopped at
Word 2, laid off all the workforce and contracters, and retired ?

Until Windoze 95, the M$ OSes did not incorporate any form of multi-
threading. Indeed this was the major selling point of W95. I presume
that you wouldn't consider this to be a maturation.

Windows is an OS not an application.

Quoted message said:

In fact, to claim that "most of the major Apps matured around the mid
80's" would suggest that you know very little about the software that
you are currently using. Given that the first version of Windoze to have
any major impact on end-users was Windoze 3.0 and was not released until
1990, I'd love to know what maturation you feel did not take place past
1985.

I'm talking about the core functionality of Databases, Spreadsheets
and Wordprocesors. The core buiness apps that probably account for 90%
of the installed corporate user base. Around 95% of the bells and whistles
which have be added to these since 1990 are of interest to say 5% of users
- and then mainly as a means of wasting time.

And for the 2nd time Windows is an OS not an App.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Finally, on what basis do you make the claim that it is impossible to
make software without holes?

I think this NewsGroup's resident nerds can answer that for you rather
better than I would care to do. ISTR its something to do with the

problem

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of trying to devise provable theorems or algorithms.

So you can't actually suggest a reason why software will always have
holes in it? In terms of devising provable theorems or algorithms, most
mathematicians are already aware of provable optimum algorithms for many
purposes. Indeed, it is possible to by books which contain details of
many such algorithms to cover many different applications such as data
sorting to hidden line calculations.

Its always possible to write mission critical software for closed
systems with a much lower vulnerability.

That's rather different to letting joe public loose on your stuff,
with a keyboard, a mouse, a penchant for bleeding edge technology
and a determination to open every attachment put in front
of him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't really think you have any comprehension of the totally

different

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

orders of magnitude in complexity which can exist between mechanical
systems and software. Its the same reason why software can never keep
pace with hardware.

I don't really think you have any comprehension of software engineering
or programming in general. You seem to consider it to be a magical thing
(Possibly you were mislead by the proliferation of "Wizards" in M$
software).

Well a wizard of any kind is what you certainly ain't.

That's for sure

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Software offers almost limitless possibilities, cars in general don't.

But engineering in general does. So again, if we can build a car that
has known failure scenarios involving wear and tear, but no random
unforseen catastrophic failures, why is the same not true of software?

Oh really ? Never heard of blowouts or metal fatigue?

Or let's get really complicated here. Campag cranks or Brooks seat rails
breaking in half at the most inconvenient moments.

Jeeze fancy not even being able to manufacture cranks that
don't snap in half! And top of the range as well !

That complicated enough for you is it, eh Weld Boy?

The Welding Wizard himself!

Quoted message said:

Or they view it as a magical thing rather than something tangible and
comprehensible.

Like a weld you mean? Yeah maybe.

Quoted message said:

If there is some grand issue of comprehension that I'm
sailing past here, please do take the time to correct me, since I
presume that you also possess this understanding of which you speak.

Yup sailing past, while the stuff shoots straight over the top
of your head. Whooooooosh!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway if they wait for the software to mature* before rushing
off to PC World maybe, they won't be so disappointed.

* Sufficient for all the workarounds** to have filterd through onto
NewsGroups

** Workaround: Using your brain to get the best out of software written
to unrealistic deadlines. Or uncooperative hardware.

Software errors are not the result of hardware failures. They are the
result of bugs. That those bugs are prevalent is due to the fallability
of humans combined with bad project management (Insufficient time
allowed for testing and correction, bad initial planning etc.).

That's what bugs all humans in fact, insufficient time.

Result = death.

Yup! Go to the top of the class Weld Boy!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By definition all Open Source needs to be far better documented
than does proprietory software. And so is potentially far more
vulnerable.

Why? No extra documentation is required for the end user, and if the
source of any code is badly documented than that will present problems
for the developers, be they a collection of online nerds, or the well-
paid programmers at M$.

If nerds can compile it then hackers can hack it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only thing which protects Open Source from hacker attacks
is the tiny user base - other than at Server level - and the
perceived nerdiness of the potential targets.

Wrong, but keep going.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing intrinsic in the code itself.

Wrong again.

Quoted message said:

All code is riddled with holes if anyone looks at it long enough.

And again.

Quoted message said:

Its simply with OS there's no real incentive for anyone to bother,
as its the PCWorld set who are the target of choice.

Not even sure what you mean here, but probably "Wrong"!

The reason that UN*X bugs are not often exploited is to do with
homogenity of code (A variety of versions running simultaneously)

A too small user base to bother with...as I said

Quoted message said:

and
the fact that an inherently stable / secure core design is harder to
attack and requires more skill to do so, than one where stability and
security have been tacked on afterwards as a boilerplate repair.

You only need the one sufficently determined and skilful person.

The skill is already there. Up until now nobody can be bothered.

You just don't get it, do you Weld Boy?

Quoted message said:

UN*X - A multi-user OS from the start with the necessary frameworks for
good security management.

So no Unix installations were ever breached by hackers then.
Is that what you're saying? This should be intersting.

Quoted message said:

WFW - A multi-user OS by name where such multi-user abilities were
forced onto a framework that did not (And could not) support them.

W9x - A core upgrade, but still single-user. See WFW

This is not a good track record. Things have improved with the NT
series, but are still let down by bad programming practices and bad bug
management. M$ admit to practising "Security by Obscurity", a technique
renowned for being [censored]!

So what you're saying here is that no non MS installations
have ever been hacked, and that all the truly heroic hacks
in the past, were always onto MS systems. Is that correct ?

I'm only asking, as clearly you know a lot more about all
this than I do.

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?

Poetry, methinks.

A

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?

Poetry, methinks.

In the style of:

"Boom, boom, boom, boom"

Jon

Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?

Poetry, methinks.

In the style of:

"Boom, boom, boom, boom"

Indeed, definitely at the bottom bracket of the poetry ladder.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Quoted message said:

In the style of:

"Boom, boom, boom, boom"

Indeed, definitely at the bottom bracket of the poetry ladder.

that would be click click, click click would it not?

...d

David Martin said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Quoted message said:

In the style of:

"Boom, boom, boom, boom"

Indeed, definitely at the bottom bracket of the poetry ladder.

that would be click click, click click would it not?

Whatever it is, he just cranks it out and tries peddle it until he
breaks.

A

(Yay! Two misspellings in one sentence, but not misspelt, IYKWIM)

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Quoted message said:

Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?
Weld Boy!
Weld Boy?

Quoted message said:

Poetry, methinks.

Or appalling 1980s pop "music"...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

"Dr Curious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

People don't say "I'm not using him for my joinery, he employs bad
craftsmen.". They say "I'm not using him, his work is bad."!

Not necessarily. They might say I'll only ever use Jones providing
he promises to send Smith to do the work. Apparently some people
insist their cars are fixed by certain mechanics in some workshops.

This is common IME from many years in the machine service sector.
The customer only stops dealing with you when they deem all your engineers
are [censored] or feel let down badly by the company as a whole, which is often
due to a disagreement over paying a bill because they feel the engineer
didn't do a good job.

Regards,
Pete

Peter B said:

This is common IME from many years in the machine service sector.
The customer only stops dealing with you when they deem all your engineers
are [censored] or feel let down badly by the company as a whole, which is often
due to a disagreement over paying a bill because they feel the engineer
didn't do a good job.

We (in a previous life) have requested a company not to send a particular
engineer because he was an idiot. And refused to pay for the four visits
where he failed to fix a particular piece of equipment that was subsequently
fixed by a different engineer.

...d

Dr Curious [email hidden] opined some curious bumf.

Despite the temptation to respond to your post, I have received a
request to hold back in an attempt to reduce the amount of irrelevance
that is currently filling up urc. Since you had returned to your usual
level of levelling somewhat childish insults at me I don't think that we
were going to make any progress in the arena of your education. I will
henceforth (try) to ignore your trolling and limit myself to reading and
responding to your occasional practical and accurate posts.

If you do wish to continue this debate away from urc we could either
move it to another, more relevant ng, or to email. Please feel free to
contact me if you wish to do so.

Regards,

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious [email hidden] opined some curious bumf.

Despite the temptation to respond to your post, I have received a
request

I very much doubt it somehow. What happened is that you originally
made an extravagent claim about Bill Gates' coding ability which,
when challenged on, you were unable to substantiate in any meaningful
way. In the course of which, it also transpired that you're unable
to even distinguish between Operating Systems and Applications. And
then, as soon as you're invited to comment on what I claim to be the
unchanging nature of the core functionality of around 90% of the
installed corporate user base since the late 80's, you decide you
don't want to discuss it any more. That all of a sudden you've
recieved this "request". Yes, all very convincing I must say,

Quoted message said:

to hold back in an attempt to reduce the amount of irrelevance
that is currently filling up urc. Since you had returned to your usual
level of levelling somewhat childish insults at me

That would sound rather more convincing had you just not written -

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't really think you have any comprehension of software engineering
or programming in general. You seem to consider it to be a magical thing
(Possibly you were mislead by the proliferation of "Wizards" in M$
software).

You see one problem with supercillious condescension of that nature
is that it's necesssary to be able to take it, before you start
dishing it out youreslf.

Whereas "Sneer and Run", which appears to be something of a speciality
of yours by the looks of things, hardly ever cuts the mustard on UseNet
I'm afraid.

Quoted message said:

I don't think that we
were going to make any progress in the arena of your education. I will
henceforth (try) to ignore your trolling and limit myself to reading and
responding to your occasional practical and accurate posts.

As I said before, you can go and live on top of a mountain as far
as I'm concerned. Do what you wish. It's your life to do with as
you see fit.

But there's really no need to try and explain yourself to the NewsGroup.
As everyone else can presumably see what's actually happened as well as
you can. As yet another of these vain attempts on your part at
demonstrating this effortless superiority of yours over other people,
again backfires on you in so spectacular a fashion.

Leaving you to slink away with your tail between your legs, as best you
can.

Quoted message said:

If you do wish to continue this debate away from urc we could either
move it to another, more relevant ng,

What NewsGroup would that be then ? alt.shallow.end ? alt.clueless.newbies
alt.humourless? Or maybe even alt.welding perhaps?

Quoted message said:

or to email.

Email undermines the whole ethos of UseNet and NewsGroups as a Public
Forum for the exchange of information and ideas. If you're looking for
penpals, then I can only suggest you try a chat room.

Quoted message said:

Please feel free to
contact me if you wish to do so.

What if I need any welding tips you mean ?

No I don't think I'll bother somehow.

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Jon

I Remain I Trust,

Yours Sincerely,

And I do mean that most Sincerely friends,

Curious

Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

Dr Curious [email hidden] opined some curious bumf.

Despite the temptation to respond to your post, I have received a
request to hold back in an attempt to reduce the amount of irrelevance
that is currently filling up urc. Since you had returned to your usual
level of levelling somewhat childish insults at me I don't think that we
were going to make any progress in the arena of your education. I will
henceforth (try) to ignore your trolling and limit myself to reading and
responding to your occasional practical and accurate posts.

If you do wish to continue this debate away from urc we could either
move it to another, more relevant ng, or to email. Please feel free to
contact me if you wish to do so.

Crossposted to alt.flame? 🙂

A