MS patches Exchange 2000 email spy bug

Now how many companies use this to allow their employees to access their email while offsite? How many of these companies will hear about the patch far less install it. It doesn't matter what SW MS develop they are full of security bugs. Even their ISA firewall has had 2 security bugs found already the last of which was a total denial of service (a polite way of saying it crashed

...but Microsoft is a **marketing** company....they know nothing about software.

Maybe they know a bit about illegal monopolies, but asking them to produce high quality, secure, user-friendly software simply ignores twenty years of terrific marketing and twenty years of lousy software.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sean

wrote on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:42 GMT

I'd quibble about that; it's clear that Microsoft knows quite a bit about software; one doesn't maintain NT without at least a working knowledge of how to code in C, C++, Visual Basic, or what not.

Of course, it's not all that *good*, and Microsoft may have been trapped by their own success. One issue is that they have to make sure that their next release of Windows Whatever supports their applications, developed on the previous release of Windows Whatever, and DOS.

This is a thankless task, made worse by their dependence on the 286 at the time (there was no elegant method by which to go from protected back to real mode on that chip; Windows selected an ugly hack but may have had no choice in the matter), and it was only when the 386 came out that a relatively flat address space became available

What is so frigging hard in putting this ./configure && make depend && make in a script and calling it setup.script, and making the UI run it on dbclick?

I think that .NET is like Java should've been. (Not dvelling on the techincaleties here, I'm talking about general attidue) It provide an easy way to port existing applications to the new platform, it provide number of languages, and allows you to interact with the underlaying OS. (IIRC, Java didn't have JNI in its first incarnation)

I've a friend that does Java programming. (I know Java enough to recognize the syntax, and maybe do some simple apps, so I don't have 1st hand experiance here) He says that C# (personal experiance here is like my Java's.) is like a better Java.

I must say that the most glaring defect I've found in Java is the case - break statement. Why *allow* this error-prone process? Java eliminate many of the C/C++ defects (usually by saying 'this cause bugs, it wouldn't be on Java', why not take this out as well?

Said Sean in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:04:42 GMT;

How exactly do you tell the difference between marketing and monopolizing, Sean?

There is another reason for this, I think. If you can use C, you can do anything you want, all the language I'm familiar with has hooks to integrate with C code.

This is another thing I don't understand, having binary compatability is nice, but why not do one of the following: A> Encourage compiling to binary. (Mere source code portability is a great thing) B> Keep the .class files, but create a native executable when first run, next time the class is being run, use the executable, don't interrupt the code.

I understand that .NET works as B suggests, IIUC.

I think that it will be cross platform, the ECMA demand it for it to be standartize, and MS apperantly really wants that. I'm a little surprised that they announced that they will have a Linux implementation, I expected a Mac implementation first.

Actually, I think that they should've kept the switch(X) { case... version, but allow ranges, which is the reason this was allowed in the first place.

I had that about three weeks ago, nasty.