"It doesn't matter what you (or tech reviewers) think of Windows Vista; sooner or later, it's what most people will have on their PCs. In that light, it's fortunate that Vista is better looking, better designed and better insulated against the annoyances of the Internet. At the very least, it's well equipped to pull the world's PCs along for the next five years - or whenever the next version of Windows drops down the chimney." More here. Free registration might be required.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
It sounds to me like their in house software is pretty shitty...
When you're building on a moving rug things can get a bit more difficult. Besides, the job of an in-house development team is to get stuff that works first and foremost.
I know of many legitimate applications that use DCOM and COM+ to communicate over a network, that work quite happily, that are now broken in SP2 simply because Microsoft hadn't thought that holes in and exploits over DCOM were important before.
They also didn't plug the hole in the easy way for people either. Oh no. The best way would have been to disallow anonymous access to DCOM and COM+ apps so you would have to explicitly assign users and groups in the installation routine of your app (which the apps I know of already do). Oh no. That would be too easy. You have to either go around all the PCs and explicitly set launch and activate permissions on every one, or you have to implement an Active Directory group policy rule if you want it done the easy way.
The net effect is that if you want this done the easy way, then if you haven't bought into an Active Directory and Windows 2003 infrastructure yet, you'll bloody well have to now. Neat, eh?
...only an incompetent IT department would "buy in" to anything without extensive testing.
He never said they didn't do any testing, which is why he said they hadn't updated to SP2 - presumably as a result of testing. He just said this testing was a right royal pain that costs time and money.
Presumably the clean up operation after the infection cost time and money as well (hey, it's Windows, it can happen) considering that Microsoft will now not patch anything prior to Windows SP2.
And people keep telling me Windows has a lower TCO (whatever TCO happens to mean this week). For some reason, I just can't see it.
Edited 2006-12-15 20:36
Member since:2006-01-06
When you're building on a moving rug things can get a bit more difficult. Besides, the job of an in-house development team is to get stuff that works first and foremost.
The goal isn't to get "stuff that works first and foremost" at all costs. Assuming that he uses best practices, he can get stuff that works -- and continues to work today and tomorrow. Call me skeptical that he followed best practices, though. My guess is that his developers hacked something together, got it running with a minimal amount of testing, and then [surprise] were shocked when their brittle solution didn't work on a new OS.
Member since:
2006-05-24
It sounds to me like their in house software is pretty shitty which isn't surprising since only an incompetent IT department would "buy in" to anything without extensive testing.