Menu
I have already posteed this in the CSS forum by mistake, sorry everyone, (just delete it if you can please)
<rant>
I hate M$ for there crummy bug ridden programs just as all sane (and insane) people should but the thing that gets me is that they know their software is bug ridden and yet they still release it. (Q. What’s the difference between Windows and a virus? A. You pay for Windows) </rant>
I was wondering if there is anything that would let me insert a link into a page so that, when clicked, an email would be sent to M$ complaining of their latest buggy piece of software. As one email address can be blocked I was wondering if it would be possible to generate a random email address to set as the sent address so it gets through easier.
I was thinking maybe PHP so I can send something through a header. This would mean that whenever a link is clicked an email would be sent. Browsing my boring website would suddenly become so much more enjoyable!
I know there must be other M$ haters out there so please help me in my feble atempt to rid the world of buggy software and lazy development.
Thanks in advance
[i]Originally posted by Dathor Verlox [/i]Sounds a lot like spam, to me. Don't you think there's enough of that already? :rolleyes:
[B]I was wondering if there is anything that would let me insert a link into a page so that, when clicked, an email would be sent... As one email address can be blocked I was wondering if it would be possible to generate a random email address to set as the sent address so it gets through easier.[/B][/QUOTE]
they produce software of exceptional standards[/quote]Speaking only in regards to Windows and IE: I don't think Microsoft has set the standard for anything. Unix set the standard for operating systems long ago, which has now been incorporated into nearly every OS *except* for Windows. And Gecko is now setting the standard for modern Web browsers.
If they didnt produce great software, the average consumer would not purchase their products[/quote]The average consumer is relatively computer illiterate. How many average consumers do you know actually research the history and quality of various operating systems and Web browsers in order to make an intelligent decision? They don't use these programs because they are great software, they use them because they are immediately available (preloaded onto most PCs as a result of marketing) and because they don't know any better. If you really think that a product prevails simply because it is better then go read up on the history of Betamax vs. VHS for a rude awakening.
so I'll try to get a page where people can sign up for a petition for better, less buggy software. [/QUOTE]is that a petition against MS or your school?
The windows operating system is outstanding[/quote]Compared to what? XP compared to 98, this is true. But no version of Windows has yet to truly contend with Unix. Unix has proven to be superior to Windows in every aspect except user friendliness.
it [security holes] happens because windows is the most used operating system in the world today and that is what hackers target[/quote]Home PCs (i.e., Windows) is a target mostly for hackers looking to cause miscellaneous mischief (in general). However, server computers storing sensitive data (e.g., social security or credit card numbers) are more likely to attract the real, elite hackers. And it is a statistical fact that these server computers are dominated by Unix based systems. Don't think for a second that people are not constantly trying to break into these Unix machines.
The only truely bad ms product is frontpage[/quote]And on what grounds do you make this statement? Last I knew you had *never* used FP. Is this still the case? If so then how can you even pretend to have any kind of informed opinion on the matter? I have *personally* used both the latest versions of DW and FP, and I found FP to be at least as good as DW.
The only truely bad ms product is frontpage.
[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]XP is a superior os for compadability reasons (everything is on windows... of cource windows is the most used, but none the less), and obviously user friendliness. Lets face it, not everyone is running a server workstation, the majority of people just use their comps for browsing the net and checking their email. UNIX would be great if it were not such a pain in the butt to use. The last statement you quoted me on I do make out of experience. I have used frontpage before just to play around and it sucks compared to dreamweaver (obviously). My main beef with it though is that when it is used by a novice to html they use only the wysiwyg features and do not learn html and frontpage coughs up static invalid code. Dreamweaver has wysiwyg features too of cource but it handles the code much better, and I think some more serious people buy it due to the higher price. Also, iis6 along with w2k3 can boast outstanding security. I must admin I have not used fp 03, but I do not plan on downloading it or anything because I am very content with dw mx.
[B]Compared to what? XP compared to 98, this is true. But no version of Windows has yet to truly contend with Unix. Unix has proven to be superior to Windows in every aspect except user friendliness.Home PCs (i.e., Windows) is a target mostly for hackers looking to cause miscellaneous mischief (in general). However, server computers storing sensitive data (e.g., social security or credit card numbers) are more likely to attract the real, elite hackers. And it is a statistical fact that these server computers are dominated by Unix based systems. Don't think for a second that people are not constantly trying to break into these Unix machines.And on what grounds do you make this statement? Last I knew you had *never* use FP. Is this still the case? If so then how can you even pretend to have any kind of informed opinion on the matter? I have *personally* used both the latest versions of DW and FP, and I found FP to be at least as good as DW. [/B][/QUOTE]
Speaking only in regards to Windows and IE: I don't think Microsoft has set the standard for anything. Unix set the standard for operating systems long ago, which has now been incorporated into nearly every OS *except* for Windows. And Gecko is now setting the standard for modern Web browsers.
[/quote]
If you really think that a product prevails simply because it is better then go read up on the history of Betamax vs. VHS for a rude awakening.
[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by buntine [/i]They are obviously the best as a company though, if we all believe in economic darwinism.
[B]I did not state that Windows or MSIE were standard-setting software. Infact, i didnt even mention those two products. The fact remains, Microsoft have several hundreds of products on the market, alot of which are standard-setting.
Nor did i state that i think a product prevails because it is better.. I said, Microsoft products would not sell if they were not good. These days, MS products will sell no matter what because of the financial grounding the company has built. But MS started with just Bill and his buddy.
I am not saying that MS is the best company out there, i am saying that they are exceptionally good.
Regards,
Andrew Buntine. [/B][/QUOTE]
XP is a superior os for compadability reasons[/quote]However many programs that are written to run on XP really says nothing about XP itself.
The last statement I do make out of experience. I have used frontpage ... I must admin I have not used fp 03[/quote]FP03, which is the latest version of FP, is what I had referred to in my post. It is this program that I believe to be at least as good as DW.
My main beef with it though is that when it is used by a novice to html they use only the wysiwyg features[/quote]...but if that same novice used DW then they would decide to skip all that WYSIWYG stuff and go straight to hard coding? How does that work? In what way is DW better at persuading the novice to hard code?
and I think some more serious people buy it due to the higher price[/quote]Unfortunatly, the cost is a very unreliable means of judging software.
iis6 along with w2k3 can boast outstanding security[/quote]Compared to what... ?
[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]Most novice web developers (i would argue to say) would use fp rather then dreamweaver though because it came with office, or it is cheaper. We do not have lots of problems on this forum with people having horrible problems because they used the dw wysiwyg features, but rather the fp ones. Just a trend I have noticed over in the good old html forum. IIS6 has great security compared to unix and iis5, I am not saying that unix has bad security, I am saying that iis6 has comperable security to unix from what I have seen. Yes there have been bugs in the past in iis6, you hear about it, but they have always been patched expediantly. IIS5 is just one huge security hole so obviously iis6 and unix do have that beat security wise.
[B]It is this program that I believe to be at least as good as DW....but if that same novice used DW then they would decide to skip all that WYSIWYG stuff and go straight to hard coding? How does that work? In what way is DW better at persuading the novice to hard code?Unfortunatly, the cost is a very unreliable means of judging software.[/B][/QUOTE]
The fact remains, Microsoft have several hundreds of products on the market, alot of which are standard-setting[/quote]I agree. That is why I specifically referred to only two such products.
Nor did i state that i think a product prevails because it is better.. I said, Microsoft products would not sell if they were not good[/quote]I think I would agree with that if the word "good" were changed to sufficient. For the average user that does little more than browse the Web and play video games, Windows is sufficient. Although, that doesn't say very much given that these simple activities do not put very much demand on the OS.
But MS started with just Bill and his buddy[/quote]So you are implying that the only explanation for MS becoming successful in its early days is good software? MS-DOS was essentially just a rip-off of CP/M, but was just different enough to be considered legal. Windows 1.0 was also a rip-off of Apple's computers. And as it was, this first version of Windows was absolutely horrid. If you actually read up on the history you'll find that Microsoft's success was the result of brilliant business decisions, not brilliant software.
So you are implying that the only explanation for MS becoming successful in its early days is good software? MS-DOS was essentially just a rip-off of CP/M, but was just different enough to be considered legal. Windows 1.0 was also a rip-off of Apple's computers. And as it was, this first version of Windows was absolutely horrid. If you actually read up on the history you'll find that Microsoft's success was the result of brilliant business decisions, not brilliant software.
[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]Look MS has a world class R & D department known as apple, and it has paid off. MS might not have come up with the ideas for many of their products, Infact even one of their best products, sql server, was taken from a company, I believe it was something like systec. But like it or not ms offers these products today so what does it really matter who came up with the idea? Corperations buy eachother out peacfully and through hostile means, and they buy eachothers products and services, its a fact of life, its business. Does the fact that another company came up with the idea for windows affect the quality of it?
[B]I agree. That is why I specifically referred to only two such products.I think I would agree with that if the word "good" were changed to sufficient. For the average user that does little more than browse the Web and play video games, Windows is sufficient. Although, that doesn't say very much given that these simply activities do not put very much demand on the OS.So you are implying that the only explanation for MS becoming successful in its early days is good software? MS-DOS was essentially just a rip-off of CP/M, but was just different enough to be considered legal. Windows 1.0 was also a rip-off of Apple's computers. And as it was, this first version of Windows was absolutely horrid. If you actually read up on the history you'll find that Microsoft's success was the result of brilliant business decisions, not brilliant software. [/B][/QUOTE]
Does the fact that another company came up with the idea for windows affect the quality of it?[/quote]Not necessarily, no. That whole paragraph was simply in response to what buntine *seemed* to be saying (though it seems I misinterpreted what he said).
I have infact read up on the history and my nderstanding is; Microsoft's success was the result of brilliant business decisions complemented by brilliant software.[/quote]Could you share your sources? Everything I've ever found indicates that Microsoft's early software was, quite simply, bad.
[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows#Early_history [/i]
This first independent version of Microsoft Windows, version 1.0, released in 1985, lacked a degree of functionality and achieved little popularity. Windows 1.0 did not provide a complete operating system, but rather extended MS-DOS and shared the latter's inherent flaws and problems. Moreover, the programs that shipped with the early version comprised "toy" applications with little or limited appeal to business users.[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]But they were not on the top from the get go, they worked their way up. There were quite a few other operating systems out at the time dos was released if my memory serves me correctly.
[B]Could you share your sources? Everything I've ever found indicates that Microsoft's early software was, quite simply, bad. [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by Jeff Mott [/i]Lol... ? I love it...
[B]Got the whole thing all written out.[/B][/QUOTE]
0.1.9 — BETA 5.18