Re: Cryptogram Comment
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: 06/18/04
- Next message: Markus Romanoff: "Re: triple DES with different keys, is it 2E112 or 2E168 to break?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- In reply to: Daniel James: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Next in thread: kurt wismer: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Reply: kurt wismer: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Reply: Daniel James: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:05:18 GMT
Daniel James wrote:
> In article
> news:<yejAc.6850$MD7.5404@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Tom St
> Denis wrote:
>> MFC, # and .net are just gimmics to scam people into thinking
>> Windows is "growing".
>
> No that's not it. I agree that MS have an agenda of their own behind
> the development of these technologies, but they're not just a scam.
I'd say they pretty much are. Could you imagine if KDE was written in C++
this week, C# next week and then Java the week after "just to embrace
technology"?.
> MFC was originally an abtraction tool so that people could write one
> application and compile it for both 16-bit and 32-bit Windows. It's
You could already do that. The Win16 and Win32 APIs were so similar that
porting an application to Win32 [what Win95/98/ME/XP are essentially] was a
matter of recompiling and minor source changes at best.
> also a fairly functional C++ wrapper around the Windows API that does
> make coding quite a lot easier than in the bare Win32 API. (It's a
> piss-poor example of object oriented design, though, largely because it
> had to be supportable on MS's old 16-bit compiler for pre-standard
> C++.)
I don't know about that. With just C and MSVC you can drag-and-drop design
GUIs, code the callbacks and have nice flashy pretty gui applications. MFC
doesn't help that.
> C# and .NET are MS's response to Sun preventing them from using Java.
Response as in "look we can do it too!" That's marketing not engineering.
C# and .NET [and .ASP and .whateversnext] won't enable you to write an
application any easier than before. I mean C is a simple language.
Resource editors take care of the GUI. Additional baggage need not apply.
>> ... that aside, none of this makes MSFT responsible for the actions
>> of people who steal their [crappy] software.
>
> That's a tough one ... I can see both sides of the argument. MS made
> the crappy software, and they have a (moral, if not legal) duty to fix
> it and to provide the fix FOC for paid-up customers. I think we can
> agree on that much.
Bingo.
> If the effect of the crappiness was only to the detriment of the users
> of the software themselves - and not to innocent and univolved third
> parties - I'd certainly agree that MS had no responsibility to provide
> the fix to those who've just ripped the software off; but as the nature
> of the crappiness is that it also affects third parties I'd say MS had
> a (moral if not legal) duty *to those third parties* to offer the fix
> to all users, including pirates.
Well then you would be for SP2 disabling pirated WinXP installs? I mean
that would stop them from running an unpatched OS.
Why should they take the stance of making a pirated install better?
Tom
- Next message: Markus Romanoff: "Re: triple DES with different keys, is it 2E112 or 2E168 to break?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- In reply to: Daniel James: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Next in thread: kurt wismer: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Reply: kurt wismer: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Reply: Daniel James: "Re: Cryptogram Comment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
