OSNews

Really late night, I meant Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR)

I always tried hard at several occasions to try to make people see also differences of the installers, since this is also an important issue. Yet, always the issue was dismissed by saying most people don't install windows anyway. Which is just stupid. Of course there are millions of people who don't care about installers, still, there are other millions who do. And it's about damn friggin' time Windows gets a new installer. Sadly, it will probably still be slower and much less functional than any other OS installer on this planet.

Is there any problem with that? In the end, the winner is the(ir) customer...

That said, they are still logical with their public stance. They still follow a closed development model, there is no public bug tracking system, they are still criticising OSS as unreliable, etc. In short, they are merely asking for more feedback.

Note that it's a win-win situation for both: the(ir) customers have an opportunity to voice their opinion while Microsoft gets an additional "team" of beta testers doing volunteer work.

Is there any problem with that? In the end, the winner is the(ir) customer...

How is it a "win" when you've donated your personal time to a $oul-$ucking corporation that is going to turn around and charge you for the final codebase, which you remain unworthy to see?

One must admire Redmond's style for having carried on thus far, while bemoaning the sheep lined up for the shearing.

I like to test new product, what problem with that?

And it's not only about bug, but about features too. For example since Beta2 some people have complained about lack of drag-tab support in IE7. Result: they have add it in last release.

It has nothing to do with the fact of testing, but the fact that they take very little effort to address the bugs found by their testers; Windows XP installation, for example, during the selection of disk, if you press enter rather than create partition, your partition will be automatically assigned to E: rather than the 'normal C. This issue has *FINALLY* been fixed in Windows XP SP2 when slipstreamed into the Windows XP.

Why did it take over 2 years for that bug to be fixed? if that were an opensource one, it would have been fixed within a few hours, and if it were too late to be included with the RTM, it would have been in the errata of known issues.

I'm sorry, but my experiences in the past with Microsoft have shown me never to waste my time testing or attempting to write up bug reports or feature requests, as what ever you do, will be completely ignored.

"Why did it take over 2 years for that bug to be fixed? if that were an opensource one, it would have been fixed within a few hours"

Just like the partitioning bug in FreeBSDs install?

Which is.....

I simply press 'F' then go 'no' when the dialogue box appears, then create the labels, and voila, all setup - what issues are you experiencing?

That's why!

I've been trying to figure out why my past three Windows installs suddenly made my partition default to E!

Thanks for this tidbit. It would've been nice to know earlier, not that it's a huge problem....

I found out that bit of information when I received a freebie (full version) OEM copy from Microsoft when Windows XP was released. It certainly didn't leave me with a good impression.

Here is another good bug I found; change from the default Luna theme to one downloaded off the Microsoft site - this case, use Bliss; install it, change to the theme, load up the built in text editor - at the top, the menu items text is in white boxes, another example of Microsoft no properly testing their code (in this case, themes) with the spaghetti code which makes up the various parts of Windows?

That isn't a code issue, it's a theme issue. Even so, what does that have to do with "spaghetti code"? All software has bugs.

*shakes head*

Most people couldn't care less of having access to the codebase: they want something that works. Lending an hand with testing does increase the chance of getting a better operating system that works. I am using Linux, yet I couldn't care less of the binary nature of my packages... as long as they work as intended.

As for charging you, what's the big deal? They have spent hundred of millions to get at this point. If those unpaid testers can manage to get a better/more productive system for the next three to five years, then it's going to be time well spent for them. Anyway, it's not like it's a ripoff. In my case, I could afford a licence with about 3 days of wages. As a matter of fact, I could even get one after two hours of work, thanks to a MSDNAA with my university. "$oul-$ucking"? Hardly. Note that I am fully aware that the price factor really depends on where you live...

So yeah, I believe it's a "win" for everyone. That said, they are still doing business as usual, unlike the grossly overrated parent post of the thread claims.

You do have a choice, right? Nobody is forcing you to beta test, correct? I just wanted to be clear on that point.

If you don't like MS or its products, don't beta test. Exercise your free will. It's that simple.

Suppose you are writing software which will be good anyway but you want to know if the people will like the way you are implementing it...

You let them test it, get input from them to improve it, to get your thing to be something that customers will like instead of throwing something at the people and tell them that this is the way, your opinion means shit.

Public opinion is a good thing to tweak the edges of a product.

I don't think that has anything to do with the OSS way of working, that is just the way to get a decent product out.

All of you bring up great points here's my two cents:

People who beta MS's products are probably going to buy it regardless. They figure here they get to see what there money will get them and help ensure that it's worth every penny.

There's two different ways of looking at this, that's just how I see it.

You believe that FOSS invented public betas?

releasing to the public build after build, beta after beta

There's a huge difference. In FOSS you evaluate versions and report bugs basically for yourself, i.e. you help them out [with testing] and they help you out [with functional free software]. In MS land, they have an army of paid coders to to their jobs and on top of that they use you as a tester for free, and all you get is a [large] number of unusable [yes, I've tried] pre-releases, and promises of features that will never happen.

The tactic is not bad [well, this is MS we're talking about, they are anything but stupid] still, it's not much reason in comparing to the FOSS development/release model.

One, not all FOSS is free.

Two, Micrsoft is not the only commercial company to have public betas, they are not even the first.

Hell, Yellowtab charged you for the use of the beta.
So does SkyOS.

You have a problem with testing it, then don't test it and shut up.

"One, not all FOSS is free. "

You seem to have missed what the F stands for.

Maybe you have some kind of stomach condition.

I wonder what the actual numbers are for folder views... I know I never use list view. All my folders stay on 'details'...

Microsoft did bad mouth Open Source...

"The magic of open-source software is not the software. It has nothing to do with the code at all. Most open-source code is terribly inferior to commercial software code," Hilf said.

This from an osnews article from a couple of days ago.

It would be nice for Hilf to define what "most" is and on what basis did he collate his information, in respects to a 'code sample' to come to that conclusion. Did he wonder through freshmeat, grab a whole heap of alpha projects, threw them together and claimed that to be the benchmark of OSS software?

Good gracious; one doesn't need to look far for quality opensource software; Apache, Netbeans, GCC, the GNU userland stack, KDE, Xorg, *BSD's, Azeurus, Firefox, Amarok etc. etc.

I have no worries with this Hilf charactor having a say on opensource software vs. his company, but lets keep to the facts rather than trying to make gross generalisations on this he seems to know *VERY* little about.

Umm, you realise of course that you can have Media Player 11 in WinXP, so it's not really a pro, right?

URGE,yes the urge to format c: y .

that would be 'format c: /y'

Not even if they had fangs.