Prev: Windows 7 hosted network mode
Next: Pipes - Named or Anonymous
From: m on 20 Jan 2010 22:39
I am sorry that you see it this way. Good luck with your resolution.

"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:#12PqfZmKHA.4312(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hector Santos wrote:
>
>> m wrote:
>>
>>> Consider for a moment what you are saying. You have told us that your
>>> software, by virtue of its age and the number of dollars / man-hours
>>> invested, is perfect and so any failure must be the fault of Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> No, that was not stated and people who known me over the years here know
>> that is FAR from what was stated. You should understand the points
>> before commenting.
>
> If it will help, the question of FAULT is not the issue. MS made a
> decision. I question that decision or better said, how it was approached.
>
> Your angle, which I really don't wish to give much attention to, is based
> on that if a decision is made it is MORE often based on the premise that
> most, if not all, effected software was incorrectly written in the first
> place. That many-years of software engineering where when uncertainty is a
> TABOO and not part of the equation is a fallacy and doesn't apply. That
> people here are really not that intelligent and you (generally speaking)
> know better than them. That 14 years of commercial Win32 products design
> and development means nothing. I'm not going to fall into this rhetorical
> judo position that is akin to the proverbial no-win question of
>
> "When was the last time you beat your wife?"
>
> In short, I will say that the argument falls flat when in fact, a system
> was well designed following software practices (which you probably can't
> define without argument) and yet a change is required not on a technical
> basis, but a subject policy decision.
>
> Veterans of the Microsoft development market knows exactly what is being
> pointed out.
>
> Believe it or not, the comments is about hope - that Microsoft, as they
> evolved and that evolution increasingly includes a greater need to break
> Win32 compatibility, that it is done with a greater regard and approach
> that does not put or minimizes the burden on vendors.
>
> I am speaking of integrity and software engineering ethics. As other as
> pointed out and it was well understood, MS does not attempt to break
> software and has historically done things to circumvent issues.
>
> I'm concern that this mentality is increasingly being disregarded. It
> might be due to the new project engineers and management. I personally
> began to concern when Ray Ozzie came on board which in summary, his very
> nature will naturally create more contention issues in the area of MS OS
> vs MS APPLICATION integration, in addition, the increasing advantage the
> using "scare of security" as a means to promote change with less liability
> when in years past, and still today when push comes to shove, it as a both
> a illegal and technical practice (See UCITA, Article 2B). Before
> responding, research and study the points.
>
> --
> HLS

From: Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] on 28 Jan 2010 12:17
I see both sides, though I tend to be more alligned with "m"'s point of
view.

The thing that is not being said here is that this is largely speculation
unless someone does the debugging work to figure out what the cause of the
problem is. Until you do that, you do not know the cause and cannot make any
assertions about the cause, development skills and ethics, legal
responsibilities, quality, fault (low on your list, I understand), etc....
It might be helpful to do the debugging work and post here what "broke" so
we can debate that.

Paul

"m" <m(a)b.c> wrote in message news:uPsgZtkmKHA.1708(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am sorry that you see it this way. Good luck with your resolution.
>
> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#12PqfZmKHA.4312(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>>> m wrote:
>>>
>>>> Consider for a moment what you are saying. You have told us that your
>>>> software, by virtue of its age and the number of dollars / man-hours
>>>> invested, is perfect and so any failure must be the fault of Microsoft.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that was not stated and people who known me over the years here know
>>> that is FAR from what was stated. You should understand the points
>>> before commenting.
>>
>> If it will help, the question of FAULT is not the issue. MS made a
>> decision. I question that decision or better said, how it was
>> approached.
[etc]


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Windows 7 hosted network mode
Next: Pipes - Named or Anonymous