Yuppers. Part of the problem /is/ code bloat. In six years I
managed to find exactly one bug (I *discovered* it back in Red
Hat Linux 4.2) and reported it /to the author/, who produced a
corrected version of the module and made it available to the
world in less than twenty minutes.
I'm still waiting for Microsoft's promised RTC fix for COBOL-80.
Actually, I'm not really still waiting - I've decided that the
guy who made the promise had a chronic integrity impairment. Care
to guess who it was? [Hint: I already know that everyone reading
this newsgroup knows his name.]
Microsoft has a well-earned reputation for letting their
customers find the bugs for them. By the time MS-DOS 3.2 came
out, I was already bored to tears with the lame excuses. You must
not have been around for Windows 3.x, which would not and could
not have been released by any software firm making even a pretext
of caring about quality. If you're able to stir up a little
pro-activity on my still extant COBOL-80 compiler problem, it'd
A comforting mantra, no doubt, to producers of buggy software. To
at least some others (like myself) it's a lame excuse for doing a
sloppy job. Every bug represents a real world failure to
produce a full-quality product. We all fail sometimes. Microsoft
would seem to Excel at it.
Issues? I call 'em "bugs". Lame? Interesting choice of words -
not one of the ones I'd have chosen to describe their business
I can appreciate that MS developers down there in the trenches
really do try to create the best software they can; and that they
would never knowingly release defective code. I just wish they
were more capable, more knowledgeable, did more complete
pre-release testing, and devoted more effort to functionally
critical areas and less to screwing around with "easter eggs" and
dancing paper clips.
I'm not a true "Microsoft hater" yet - I seem to have gotten
stuck in the "disgusted" stage. If it offends you that my Linux
box lives in my shop (where I really need the reliability) and
that I post from SWMBO's windows box at home - well, I have to
admit that it offends me too. (-:
I'm not a Microsoft hater - I'm a /bug/ hater; and I tend to have
a low regard for companies who sell defective products and/or
don't make good on their committments. YMMV.
Man, you really opened yourself up for flames here. You're not going
to win any arguments, so you should just stop posting in this thread.
Micro$oft programmers' opinions of themselves is a huge part of the
problem. You think you're badass, and stuff starts slipping through
I'm a game programmer and we were forced to "upgrade" to .NET for XBox
development. What a heap of crap it is. There are so many problems
that I can't believe it got out the door. Even more stunning is the
fact that there are no service packs for these problems.
Micro$oft ruined SourceSafe when they bought the product, renamed it
"Visual SourceSafe," and destabilized it. Now everyone is running to
Perforce because some "not too shabby" programmers there decided to
Micro$oft is the Wal-Mart of software. Nobody likes them. They're both
the biggest, they both sell crap, and everyone buys it.
At least I don't use Windoze much at home. I don't use a computer much
at home. I head out to the wooodshop :)
You can think you're as badass as you want. You may even be badass,
but you're not smart for putting your efforts into a company that
takes no pride in it's products. Through poor quality, Micro$oft
tarnishes the "Made in USA" label just as badly as the American
automakers. At least there are better, more popular choices for cars.
;-) I've been writing code since the 1970's and I'm quite (favorably)
impressed with .NET. Of course it's not perfect but a lot of it is pretty
darn close. ASP.NET is better for web apps than anything else I know about.
I'm still pining for VB6-style MDE development windows because they make
much better use of screen space on multiple monitor computers. But other
than that everything I use has been improved under .NET.
I think the .NET feature set is incredible, it's just the bugs that
ruin it. We use it for C++.
Two major examples:
When I pull code, and a project file changes, I only get prompted the
/first/ time -- if I pull later, I get no prompt and the project file
doesn't reload. We've had to resort to closing .NET completely,
pulling code, then restarting and reloading the solution.
RetardiSense(tm) only works about 10% of the time, and I can see no
pattern of when it works. Most of the time, I get the wonderful
"IntelliSense: 'No additional information available'" Ugh. Makes me
feel like I'm editing with Notepad.
The developers that released this piece of wonderment are "not too
shabby," huh? Dumbasses.
Part of it is the culture. You don't get hired unless you show that
you can solve some of those irritating mental puzzles (you know the ones
like 5 missionaries and 5 cannibals have to get across a rope bridge
...). Some people do well at it, some don't, but IMHO, that doesn't
provide a very good indication of how innovative or how "out of the
box" you are going to be in a real environment. What it does do is
guarantee hiring a certain type of person. The kind of person who, for
example, might take great delight in writing clever little easter eggs
into flagship software products. In Msoft's opinion (or at least it
used to be several years ago) that was a prime qualifier to get hired.
Ah yes, the infamous, "Microsoft freedom to innovate" which typically
means "freedom to deviate from the standard into our own proprietary
format". Which translates into software and data that is only readable
using a Microsoft product, and, since Msoft has such a share of the
market to force the adoption of the Msoft product by just about
everybody in order to be able to access the data they need.
Yeah, that's for sure. When I was about to graduate with my CS degree,
I interviewed with Micro$oft just for practice. I knew they had a
challenging interview process, and I had zero interest in actually
working for them. I did well with the technical and puzzler questions
(I really like those kinds of problems).
I declined a second interview.
Boy, the job market sure was different back then :)
I'm looking at the CutList "compare features" page right now. Can anyone
explain what "copies allowed per part" means? I'm not really likely to
make 1000 copies (or 5000 for the gold version) of anything, but...
It's not anything to concern you unless you are running a production shop
and making hundreds of a particular item, say like a Mission hall bench.
Let's say the bench requires 25 slats of the exact same dimension. Your
enter the slat (part) once in CutList program and the number of "copies"
that you would make for each bench would be 25.
You can see that if you were going to use the program to figure the cost,
cutlist, layouts, and raw materials list for a 100 of these benches, you
would need the Gold version.
Ah! Now I understand - it's nothing to concern me as a hobbiest.
Now, I'm looking at the samples on the register page:
There's no way you're going to cut sample #1 or #2 with a table saw. Do
these cutlist programs presume that you're going to use a saber saw to
cut out the pieces? Even sample #3 looks a little "iffy"...
With Cutlist Plus you can change the optimization, and thus the cut layouts,
between maximum utilization of material with minimum waste or vice versa.
You can also change the grain direction of the cuts as well as specify the
amount(%) of waste you can live with .
In short, there are a number of ways to do cut layouts depending upon these
parameters, as well as optimization for yield when dealing with rough
I don't work for the company and there might be software out there just as
good, this is solely my experience with that particular program.
You're a slimy dirtbag mapscum. There is no insurance to cover what you're
stealing from a guy that devoted countless hours to writing an excellent
program. I hope you choke on the $30.00 you saved cheapskate.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.