Forgot your password?

Comment: A list done by a 15 years old (Score 2) 283

by swissmonkey (#47409931) Attached to: The World's Best Living Programmers

This truly is the crappiest list I've seen, and I have seen crappy lists. Creating a 'cool' site like Quora somehow gets you on that list, so does answering StackOverflow questions. I guess you either have to create websites or have Google on your resume to be on that list.

How about creating 2 of the most successful and important operating systems the world has ever seen ? Namely, VMS and Windows NT.

Oh yeah, David Cutler for example isn't on that list, I guess he should have stuck to creating websites in PHP...

Leslie Lamport anyone ? Oh no, he didn't work on some crappy website either, doesn't count !

Comment: Re:It's a huge undertaking (Score 1) 305

by swissmonkey (#39770693) Attached to: Did Microsoft Simply Run Out of Time On Windows RT?

There's no need for patching, the code builds and runs on ARM, it simply doesn't ship because it's not needed. There's no enterprise software that will run on if for a couple years anyway and by then next release will be there. So removing it saves on testing, RAM, HD space and support along with battery life & security (less attack surface).

Comment: Re:No. (Score 1) 305

by swissmonkey (#39770627) Attached to: Did Microsoft Simply Run Out of Time On Windows RT?

And what enterprise you think will buy non-x86/amd64 tablets ? There's no enterprise software for them and there won't be for a few years at least. The iPad has barely any itself.

MS will arrive with Win8 tablets that can run existing entreprise software, that can join domains : the x86/amd64 versions.

There's no point in having those features on the ARM port because there's simply no software to take advantage of it and there won't be for a significant time.

Comment: Re:You're not a cross platform kinda guy, I see .. (Score 1) 305

by swissmonkey (#39770577) Attached to: Did Microsoft Simply Run Out of Time On Windows RT?

The truth is that you have absolutely NO basis to claim that Windows NT (it's latest incarnations being Win7 / Win8) is not portable today. You're just making baseless claims based on your wishes.
You have absolutely no clue as you've shown in your previous posts as to how MS develops Windows, even less when it comes to secure software.

Now feel free to prove me wrong, give FACTS showing that NT is not portable TODAY.


by swissmonkey (#39770549) Attached to: Did Microsoft Simply Run Out of Time On Windows RT?

If you weren't such an idiot you would know that :
- Windows NT was built with portability as a central goal. It didn't run on x86 to start with, they chose the i860, an exotic CPU on purpose to avoid x86-centric assumptions. It ran on a wide variety of CPUs from x86 to i860 to PPC to Mips to Alpha to even Sparc (not released publicly) to Itanium to amd64 to now ARM.
- Linux was originally built as x86 only, totally contradicting your claims, they had to pretty much rewrite the kernel to make it portable, so the OS built from the ground up with portability was NT, not Linux !
- Microsoft is viewed today by pretty much the entire security industry as THE company when it comes to secure software development. Every security head from Dan Kaminsky to Charlie Miller to Bruce Schneider will tell you that. You clearly have no clue about the subject

So really, you're clueless and got it totally wrong.

Comment: Re:Left out the best part (Score 3, Interesting) 574

by swissmonkey (#33335340) Attached to: Iran Unveils Its First UAV Bomber

That's probably due to the fact that Iran has never invaded another country, while it found itself attacked by Iraq without any valid justification. Back then Iraq was supported by pretty much the entire western world. I won't even go into how the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government to replace it with a dictatorship(the Shah)

End result: Iran has every reason to build up its defences. History has shown Iran that the western world's propaganda about justice and fairness only applies to them, not to other countries, that the western world will support unjustified attacks on Iran and thus they need to be able to defend themselves.

Microsoft Demos Three Platforms Running the Same Game 196

Posted by Soulskill
from the pick-up-and-play dept.

Comment: Re:never mentions design or economics (Score 1, Insightful) 596

by swissmonkey (#31152968) Attached to: Are All Bugs Shallow? Questioning Linus's Law


If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that MS has a VERY GOOD reputation on security. It used to be awful, but they completely cleaned up their act these past few years and now when you talk to security consultants(IO Active, Leviathan, iSec partners, ...) and ask them who's doing a great job, the first name they pronounce is ... Microsoft

In the security world, your reputation is based on real things: the # of issues your code has, how hard you make it for people to exploit your code, whether your system is secure by default, ... not by the number of times you show up in the news, because that last one is purely driven by your market share, not by the quality of your code.

Take a look at SQL Server, compare its security record to any other database with a decent market share on the market.

Comment: Re:Good Press for Microsoft? (Score 1) 493

by swissmonkey (#30016528) Attached to: Did Microsoft Borrow GPL Code For a Windows 7 Utility?

So you're telling us that the installs you have done were botched and had to be redone. Why would that say anything about the quality of Windows 7 ?

Because let's be frank, if you can't keep a Windows 7 stable, you have no business touching other people's computers.

You sound *EXACTLY* like a Windows fanboy complaining about Linux because he has no clue about how to use it.

Comment: Re:containment theory... (Score 1) 1032

by swissmonkey (#29574939) Attached to: Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

Buddy, 44% of this country voted for McCain, after 8 years of Bush, Jr. If you think Iran using a tactical nuke wouldn't push them plus a bunch of middle-of-the-road people over the edge to annihilate Iran, you're crazy. The U.S. doesn't do the "well, maybe it was deserved and we should consider our options" thing very well. We'd destroy first and consider many years afterward.

No they won't, because this would have implications in regard to China and Russia as well as pretty much the entire world, with a backlash against the US that the world has never seen before, and tactical nukes would then lose their entire value as the US could never use them again, as Russia/China would have every reason to treat it the same way the US did : massive nuclear retaliation.

The fact that 44% voted for McCain doesn't change anything, the people in power and at the Pentagon know what's at stake. They're more interested in keeping the US's strategic influence and military advantage than pleasing a bunch of republican retards

Comment: Re:containment theory... (Score 1) 1032

by swissmonkey (#29571311) Attached to: Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

You're right. We'd sit off shore and bomb 'em back into the stone age. There wouldn't be an invasion, because there'd be nothing left to invade. If you think for one second that a nuke dropped on a U.S. army force would give the U.S. cause to sit back and rethink the whole thing, you're sadly ignorant of history.

Nope, you wouldn't even start to invade, because you know the US public would absolutely not accept casualties at that level, as no behavior from a country besides setting off a nuke in the US would justify the killing of 10-20'000 US soldiers(and more in the following years from radiation). That's the whole point of having nukes for Iran.

If Iran were to set off a nuke in the U.S. or against U.S. forces, there wouldn't be any invasion. We'd annihilate the entire country. THAT is why a single nuke isn't a deterrent to the U.S. It is a saber to rattle against Israel, but not the U.S.

You're actually quite ignorant about the strategy of your own country.
Setting off a nuke in the US would certainly trigger massive US reprisals.
Launching a nuke on attacking US forces far outside the US would certainly not, the whole point of tactical nuclear weapons during the cold war was to repulse attacking enemy armies without setting off a total nuclear war
