Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft Development Model

  • Subject: Re: Microsoft Development Model
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 05:42:58 +0000
  • Newsgroups: uk.legal
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <dk2gpn$1kop$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <4364d3f5$0$15063$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net> <8ot9m153uq5a5jq8v656ee5fmhacqudmta@news.kempston.net> <4365071f$0$15062$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net> <dk4015$214q$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <9283.2453676@crumhorn.org>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [marc_CH] on Tuesday 01 November 2005 02:34 \__

> In article <dk4015$214q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote...
>> The news got even worse: Longhorn was irredeemable because Microsoft
>> engineers were building it just as they had always built software.
>> Throughout its history, Microsoft had let thousands of programmers each
>> produce their own piece of computer code, then stitched it together into
>> one sprawling program.
> That's how *all* non-trivial software is written, dingbat.
> marc

Watch you mouth please. These were not my words. They came from an article,
which I happen to agree with.

Microsoft often portray the Linux development 'model' as one which involves
many 'cowboys' building standalone components. Prior to this revelation, it
was assumed that Microsoft used their vast resources to build software in a
more principled manner rather than compose 'code spaghetti'.

Since software such as Windows was admittedly not modular (a Windows
developer said this to me), it was difficult to detect all these possible
loopholes. Thus, nowadays people are forced to patch up Windows very
frequently are are still susceptible to attacks via routes that have not yet
been explored or realised, yet.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index