gtvtcs2 0 Report post Posted October 24, 2005 Since today, i think SP3 isn't available, just a plant ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JungulSouljah 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2005 If they stopped making service packs and 'upgrades' then Windows would be hacked to hell...o wait it already has... And .... I'm wondering how many problems this SP3 will create this time.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akijikan 0 Report post Posted October 28, 2005 Oh I really wish they would release their software after it's finnished and not before. 1064324568[/snapback] Oh I wish you wouldn't display such an ignorant view of the software development process. I'm not exactly the pro-microsoft guy so forgive the apologetics, but the whole idea of "releasing software after it's finished" is a whole bunch of bull. Software is constantly being improved. Look how often open-source software is updated or new versions are available for download. Most serious Linux distros have an update system: apt-get, portage, yast... But I'm willing to best that you wouldn't slam them, only the big evil Microsoft. The software is not incomplete, features are just added. What's the difference between an update and a service pack? A name. That's about it. The popular open-source alternative to Internet Explorer, Firefox has new versions released often. What's the diference between that and what Microsoft does with service packs? One is a whole new program, one modifies an existing program. More often than not, the "whole new program" is just like the older one except for a few <i>updates</i>. The only difference is installing a whole program to get them. So it in essence the same thing as what Microsoft does. Does that make Firefox incomplete? No, just means there's an improvement. The day your software is complete is the day you're a stale programmer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tansqrx 0 Report post Posted October 31, 2005 Preach it again akijikan.It is hard to imagine someone would thing that something as complex as an OS should not have to be upgraded. The simple fact is this; we are still in the infancy of software development. Compared to other inventions of mankind, computers and therefore the software that runs on them has had one of the most explosive growths in history. Most people were not even exposed to a computer until Windows 95. Wow that was only 10 years ago. There is still much to be learned about this beast called software. From as little as we do know, updates and security patches are going to be a way of life. From this point on, if a piece of software over 100 lines long does not get an update at least once a year, most likely you are a sitting duck to be hacked. Think of it this way. There is a software engineering term referred to as defect per line of code, usually per 1000 lines of code. A defect could be anything from a bad loop condition to a security hole. A very good software project will have maybe 1.5 defects/KSLOC. Lets say you even have really really good QA and it gets down to .5 defects/KSLOC. Now think of how many millions of lines of code Windows XP has in it (around 40M)40,000,000/1,000=40,000 SLOC40,000*.5=20,000 defectsThere could be as many as 20,000 defect in Windows XP. If even 10% (2,000) are exploitable then you will need a patch immediately. This is for an extremely well written piece of code. If you have ever written code you will much better appreciate this paradox. Code is a very hard thing to create and putting code out without patches is a thing of the past.P.S. akijikan, you sound quite educated in this area, any comments would be appreciated.P.P.S. This does not include bugs introduced with patches or other upgrades such as new functionality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
