OSNews

There hasn't been any BSD code since NT4.

"There hasn't been any BSD code since NT4."

If MS used BSD code, then maybe Windows would not be so putrid.

Yes because I'm sure you've seen the Windows code to be able to make a direct comparison? Right?

You wouldn't post a comment without having facts or statistics would you? That's totally not you.

"Yes because I'm sure you've seen the Windows code to be able to make a direct comparison? Right?"

Do you believe abhorrent Windows code can match the quality of BSD code?

Not at first. The BSD codebase is a time tested and hardened code base. It doesn't however, completely rule out Microsoft's offering.

You made a blind comparison, and judging from your other comments here it seems you do that a lot.

Microsoft may not be the best software company, but blindly disregarding them is silly as well. There are some pretty bright people working at Redmond. Microsoft however, goes about it's development process completely wrong. Instead of "it ships when it's ready", they push a crunch time cut off date which developers must meet.

This is the reason why such seemingly obvious issues are overlooked.

"The BSD codebase is a time tested and hardened code base. It doesn't however, completely rule out Microsoft's offering."

Windows could never match BSD on quality, stability, reliability, unless...... they use BSD code.

"You made a blind comparison, and judging from your other comments here it seems you do that a lot."

I thought BSD superiority over Windows was obvious. Do you disagree?

"Microsoft may not be the best software company, but blindly disregarding them is silly as well."

Tell me when they make a quality, DRM/activation/WGA free, fairly priced OS, with a reasonable EULA, and I will consider not disregarding them.

"There are some pretty bright people working at Redmond."

They must be very embarrassed about Vista.

"Microsoft however, goes about it's development process completely wrong."

I agree, Vista proves that.

"Instead of "it ships when it's ready", they push a crunch time cut off date which developers must meet."

They should spend more time improving the OS, instead of infecting it with DRM.

"This is the reason why such seemingly obvious issues are overlooked."

I will never overlook Windows obvious inferiority to other OS's.

Whoa, slowdown fanoy.

Again, you're going back to your blind assertion as if you've somehow seen the sourcecode to Windows. Unless you have your comparison is unfounded, and wrong.

As for the rest of your comment, it's just useless fanboyish ranting which has been argued into oblivion.

"half a$$ network stack that was never tested or used."

and all that beta testing and Release candidates was nothing? The article even states they are running IPV6 in redmond, MS always eats it's own dogfood, perhaps this is just a bug? They happen

Just shut up, you aren't adding anything to the discussion.

"What can you expect from Microsoft. They do half a$$ programming. Always have and they always will."

I am sure they worked very hard on WGA and activation, give them some credit.

"you will be able to resume playing Halo 2 for Vista over IP6!"
I can't play it already on ipv4.
RAM usage soard to 1GB and started to cache my HDD for more.
Performance is so horrible it felt like I am trying a game on an Intel Pentium II.
Buggy-wise, this OS is the most buggy I have ever seen on production; from networking to sharing to gaming to browsing to doing almost anything. I found that from my experience in the field.
It's buggieness makes it unpredictable and thus fall as a business tool. I got serious networking issues and printing issues and others on many brand new laptops at work, that I cannot explain to customers except telling them they are bugs that always come with any new OS package.

Name me 1 OS that is secure &/or not buggy.

I agree, all OSes have bugs and the occasional security flaw. But MS consistently fails to deliver correctly even basic, every day functionality. Example (faced recently): Windows explorer cannot copy files with paths that exceed 259 chars. Mind you, this happens on Win 2003 Server, their flagship server OS. What good is a Server that allows users to create these files and then denies them copying them? And this is an old Win2K bug that is still here, 7 years later. Enough said.

I consider the following OS's relatively secure, and not too-buggy overall:

Win2K
WinXP
Gnu/Linux
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD
Mac OSX

I'm sure there are more. However, if your standard is absolute perfection, then of course the discussion is over, since no OS ever will be.

You wanted someone to list an O/S that secure and is not buggy.
How about these two for starters.

Z/OS
OpenVMS
HP Non-Stop

Ok, they are not PC Operating Systems but they just work and often for years between reboots/ipl's.
The sort of things you can do with these two beauties ancient as they maybe, just make Vista look like what it really is "Looks Good, Tastes Good and by golly does you no good" to borrow heavily from an old advert for a famous Irish Stout.

OpenVMS clusterwide filesystem, rolling O/S upgrades in a cluster, diskless cluster nodes etc.
Been very secure for years. No usermode silliness here.

VMS is awesome. I love messing with it.

Isn't the uptime record for a VMS Cluster (not a single machine, but a *cluster*, so there was no downtime overall) like nearly 20 years?

"Can't MS atleast have 1 os that is not unsecure &/or buggy???"

MS is obviously incapable of making a quality OS, but at least they give you DRM.

Man, you love to beat that dead horse. MS wouldn't have put any DRM in the damn thing if the Labels and studios hadn't made them, nobody likes it, including MS. The Studios have made it almost impossible for a normal consumer to watch an HD or Blue-ray disk on thier computer without it. Apple has lots of DRM in Itunes and OS X, but you aren't complaining about that. Please, find another drum to pound on, at least for some variety

"MS wouldn't have put any DRM in the damn thing if the Labels and studios hadn't made them, nobody likes it, including MS."

MS is a willing participant in the DRM conspiracy, nobody forced them to infect their OS with that crap.

"The Studios have made it almost impossible for a normal consumer to watch an HD or Blue-ray disk on thier computer without it."

That is why most people will watch regular DVD and movie downloads on their computers. Who needs ultra DRM infected Blu-ray and HD-DVD?

"Apple has lots of DRM in Itunes and OS X, but you aren't complaining about that."

Where is the DRM in OSX? Itunes is finally giving people a DRM free option.

something about fairplay, the DRM for Itunes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6711215.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/06/05/apple.itunes.plus.ap/in...
http://boingboing.net/2006/06/09/antiitunes_drm_demon.html
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/2A351C60-A4E5-4764-...

Read it, and maybe you'll learn something.

"MS is a willing participant in the DRM conspiracy, nobody forced them to infect their OS with that crap."

Uh, the labels did, and MS, needing to have Windows play HD-DVD and Blue-ray, had no choice but to put it in. Even MS knows it's crap

Your now repeating yourself. Its "Blu-ray" not "Blue-ray". Its also not about HD-DVD and Blue-Ray its about Premium(sic) content which could be anything.

Lets ignore the fact that these things get cracked. Lots of Consumers don't want it. Why is there simply not an *Option* not to have it? Apple offer me that with there DRM encumbered stuff.

"something about fairplay, the DRM for Itunes"

Itunes could be much better, but the DRM infecting Vista is much worse.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

"Uh, the labels did, and MS, needing to have Windows play HD-DVD and Blue-ray, had no choice but to put it in. Even MS knows it's crap"

MS loves DRM! They chose to punish their customers with useless DRM, they could have offered a DRM free version, but they chose to oppose their customers, and force them to buy DRM infected software. MS is a truly wretched company.

"MS wouldn't have put any DRM in the damn thing if the Labels and studios hadn't made them"

It is true that Microsoft are only a tiny company, of no real influence over their own product. Movie companies with great technical and intimate knowledge of the inner workings of closed source product were able to better direct its implementation, than Microsoft's own engineers, and used their programmers to implement it in the OS. Microsoft constants strive for whats better for its customers, and ensure high quality of their product rather than use there Monopoly control of the OS, to continue to have control over the next generation of Media. They would like Apple to control Movies as they do Music. Because they have too much money and don't want any more.

Seriously though, how is this method of implementing DRM not in Microsoft's own favor?

"Apple has lots of DRM in Itunes and OS X, but you aren't complaining about that."

I think the difference between Apples DRM, which is also not good BTW is that is does not have far reaching affect within the OS itself, and is loosely tied the the product, you can even burn you Music tracks.

Edited 2007-06-11 19:58

hahahaha, you speak of the record companies and studios as if they are god almighty and that they can do whatever they want.

heres a newsflash for you, they dont control MS the least, MS can do whatever the hell they want, they dont even have to follow the united states law. They implement drm solely because they want to.

with a market share on the standard desktops for the american sheeple, they can do whatever the hell they want, and the studios would just have to bow down and accept it, cause they cant do shit about it.

"heres a newsflash for you, they dont control MS the least, MS can do whatever the hell they want, they dont even have to follow the united states law. They implement drm solely because they want to. "

Are you crazy? MS would be hit under the DMCA in the states if it implemented HD-DVD and Blue-Ray without DRM, and break multiple countries copyright laws. The EU would be all over them. Wake up and smell the coffee. MS can no longer do what it wants, the EU will crush them.

"Are you crazy? MS would be hit under the DMCA in the states if it implemented HD-DVD and Blue-Ray without DRM, and break multiple countries copyright laws. The EU would be all over them. Wake up and smell the coffee. MS can no longer do what it wants, the EU will crush them."

There are lots of solutions that could have been implemented. The obvious one being one that bypasses the OS completely. In a similar fashion to the CD cables.

The EU failed to remove IE/Media Player from the OS, and created the mythical N version. I have yet to see this on sale...anywhere.

That's becuase nobody wants it, so no retailers ordered it.

heh, I've never seen that in a comment on any site... just in old tech docs :]

I didn't even know what it meant at first. lol...

I haven't seen that term in around 8 years either, was used all the time back when I was interning at IBM in the mainframe storage division.

I feel old now :/

"I haven't seen that term in around 8 years either, was used all the time back when I was interning at IBM in the mainframe storage division."

Similar here, robotron EC-1040 OP1 work after OS/ES reported "IDBF05W MACHINE ERROR RELOAD OC EC"... :-)

IPL was a common term on the IBM AS/400 systems, too, and still is in basic OS design. It even has a real german equivalent which uses the same abbreviation.

BSD has an IP packed log device called ipl - just "man ipl".

"I feel old now :/"

You don't need to. Know thine power, use it wisely, feel good. :-)

To get nearly back on topic, BSD has working IPv6 for years. I simply cannot imagine MICROS~1 didn't get it working until now. Maybe there's some error in the products they're selling, "at home" (at Redmond) IPv6 seems to work... strange guys, strange software...

Microsoft doesn't make network switches or networking hardware. Making it non-compliant just hurts them since Vista wouldn't work on any networks.

It's not clear at all what the problem is. You really can't tell much from the article about where the problem must be. They connected a network analyzer to their switches, but did not give any details about what they were observing through it.

Microsoft almost certainly runs IP6 in their corporate network and the networking team likely has several test nets to catch bugs in their implementation. It's impossible to test every network configuration, though, and these IP6 bugs will still need some remediation. It could even be that those people are misconfiguring their network in some way. It doesn't matter because this is not a serious or unfixable issue. I'd complain if it still were not working after SP1.

"I'd complain if it still were not working after SP1." I'd complain about still being a beta tester.

I just wondered why the 5 years between XP and Vista, and 7 Months from launch. Errors of this magnitude are appearing. Why should not complain now, but instead wait until after SP1 to complain? Shouldn't things be right in the RTM version? Why make excuses on their behalf their a multi billion dollar company with 70 thousand employee's? Maybe products would be delivered tested and working first time.

The reality of this shows that the regardless of the development model, release soon and often is a better approach. Although I'm surprised this wasn't picked up on there free tester program which looked quite successful. Although I think it surprises nobody the way Vista was rushed out at the end that errors of this magnitude appear.

Edited 2007-06-11 18:20

I just wondered why the 5 years between XP and Vista, and 7 Months from launch. Errors of this magnitude are appearing.

I'm wondering what the error actually *is*.

The two companies the article talked to, the first one produces a dilbert-speak sentence that when properly reduced, says "We're not getting error messages from the stack the way we think we ought to". I grant that error codes being returned from the network stack in a sane way is a requirement of a good network stack, but that doesn't affect the performance or reliability of the stack itself.

The second part of the article basically says "Yeah-- our printer doesn't work if the client has ipv6 enabled". No mention of *other* ipv6 stacks that work, no mention of how the printer(s) are connected-- Just that removing ipv6 solves the problem. Nowhere do they offer any indication if the problem is the printer, the drivers, the network, or Windows.

My experience is that the first thing *any* computer tech blames is the thing they understand the least. IPv6 is still "new-fangled", and few people understand what it is beyond the marketing speak of "More numbers, dude!". So of course it gets blamed for all problems.

My guess is that the printer problem is related to really old firmware on their switch infrastructure. It would take packet sniffing to verify.

"Probably designed to be non-compliant. Using there high percentage market share to bully people. If isps want to use ipv6, they'll have to use non-compliant networking for use with Vista."

Not to rain on your crazy conspiracy parade or anything but in the networking world MS isn't exactly a giant. Cisco, Juniper and every other big (and small) network manufacturers has been shipping IPv6 ready gear for a long time and if MS can't make their OS work with existing gear MS will be on the losing end. None of these companies, especially not the big ones, would redesign all their gear to comply with MS faulty implementation.

Seriously, why was the OP modded to plus 5? WTF?