In article <dk9ih5$3mk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote...
> > It's your agreement with which I am taking issue. How do you think large
> > software projects are written? How do you think large software projects
> > *should* be written?
> Okay, fair enough.
> Software should be written to become more cohesive by using specifica-
> tions, use cases and smarter ahead-planning.
And what do you *know* that shows that Microsoft *don't* do this?
(Notice the use of the word 'know')
> If an operating system per-
> mitted access and full control to any hacker in the world, something had
> definitely gone rotten. If even a patch was incomplete, it is then negli-
And if we invent glass that allows hooligans to break it then I suppose
something has also gone rotten in the glassmaking industry.
> >> 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'.
> > Where do Microsoft 'often portray' this about Linux?
> Public speaking and word-of-mouth can be just as damaging as one would ex-
Yeah. Great. Sure. I asked you 'where'. You appear to be unable to back
up your words with any kind of evidence. 'Word of mouth'...give me a