Would we tolerate anything else that got worse over time, not as a result of normal wear and tear but because the manufacturer suddenly decided it should?
Processors change, libraries become deprecated or vulnerable, design paradigms shift, and new integrations become possible that weren’t there when the application first launched. Should we blame old house builders for using asbestos when they didn’t know how poorly that would end up?
Processors change? Non-sequitur. Spectre an its ilk arrived on the scene at least a decade after MS had developed a reputation for shipping shit code.
Libraries become deprecated or vulnerable? Non-sequitur. Whose libraries? Who deprecated them? Remember, this is a company that personified Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If they picked shitty vendors for libraries and did no due diligence on that source code, why are the externalities foisted upon users? Also, libraries don’t “become vulnerable” through some magical process. Either the bug was there from the beginning, or a shitty change was introduced and not caught.
Design paradigms shift? And this is an excuse for writing shitty code? I don’t buy it.
New integrations require new code and that means taking into consideration the new shape of the system. Sounds like they did a really shitty job of that and they make it the user’s problem.
All software is either shit to begin with or becomes shit when it gets big enough. If a Linux distro were forced to maintain as much legacy cruft as Windows it would be shit too.
I see you have yet to meetmy old friend Debian, who was supporting i386 until 2 weeks ago, and includes a much broader library of softwate than Microsoft has ever maintained.
includes a much broader library of softwate than Microsoft has ever maintained.
This is true, but isn’t what I was referring to. The problem MS are facing is not what they themselves have built, but the huge number of apps that other businesses have built over the years which prevent MS from rewriting or deprecating many parts of the bloated zombie that is now Windows.
Except for the fact that linux is even better at running those old apps from other vendors by now. Try running Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 software under linux with wine.
I think I’ll continue to enjoy my pseudonymity for the time being. Besides, I could link you to some rando’s modules, claim to be that person, and you’d have no way of verifying anyhow since this nick has no resemblance to the handle I used. But let’s just say, I shipped well-tested, thoroughly documented modules with very high “kwalitee” used by fortune 100 companies.
Why did they write such shit software in the first place? No, they don’t get off the hook.
Processors change, libraries become deprecated or vulnerable, design paradigms shift, and new integrations become possible that weren’t there when the application first launched. Should we blame old house builders for using asbestos when they didn’t know how poorly that would end up?
Processors change? Non-sequitur. Spectre an its ilk arrived on the scene at least a decade after MS had developed a reputation for shipping shit code.
Libraries become deprecated or vulnerable? Non-sequitur. Whose libraries? Who deprecated them? Remember, this is a company that personified Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If they picked shitty vendors for libraries and did no due diligence on that source code, why are the externalities foisted upon users? Also, libraries don’t “become vulnerable” through some magical process. Either the bug was there from the beginning, or a shitty change was introduced and not caught.
Design paradigms shift? And this is an excuse for writing shitty code? I don’t buy it.
New integrations require new code and that means taking into consideration the new shape of the system. Sounds like they did a really shitty job of that and they make it the user’s problem.
Should we blame the old house builders for using asbestos? Unequivocally, yes. Those shitheads knew or should have known. Don’t believe me? Here is a handy link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169500224003623
Do note the decades between when it was understood the shit was dangerous and when the decline as a building material happened.
So, no, MS still does not get a pass.
All software is either shit to begin with or becomes shit when it gets big enough. If a Linux distro were forced to maintain as much legacy cruft as Windows it would be shit too.
I see you have yet to meetmy old friend Debian, who was supporting i386 until 2 weeks ago, and includes a much broader library of softwate than Microsoft has ever maintained.
This is true, but isn’t what I was referring to. The problem MS are facing is not what they themselves have built, but the huge number of apps that other businesses have built over the years which prevent MS from rewriting or deprecating many parts of the bloated zombie that is now Windows.
Except for the fact that linux is even better at running those old apps from other vendors by now. Try running Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 software under linux with wine.
False dichotomy. That was a business decision with externalities foisted upon users.
Let’s look at your code from 20+ years ago?
Go ahead, bro. It’s on CPAN.
Ok whatever dude, you need to provide more details than “go ahead.” 😏
I think I’ll continue to enjoy my pseudonymity for the time being. Besides, I could link you to some rando’s modules, claim to be that person, and you’d have no way of verifying anyhow since this nick has no resemblance to the handle I used. But let’s just say, I shipped well-tested, thoroughly documented modules with very high “kwalitee” used by fortune 100 companies.