Microsoft compares Win2k to Linux

Jason Lott jason.lott at
Fri Jul 19 14:34:55 PDT 2002

> Too often I hear
> complaints from the Linux community "MS just assumes the way they do
> things is the right way.  I should have more flexibility!"  The fix,
> in this case, is to just use the calls properly.

Uh oh... Someones jumping to the defence of M$ on a linux list... Like
I've never seen such bravery ;)

I think I've said that once before... But only because MS added
"wonderful features" which were neither desired/needed, and when the
bugs started crawling out of the woodwork because of their feature.
Their initial advice "disable the feature... we'll remove access to the
feature in our patch".

Of course, if the context checking of the tools used, would check for
such potential trouble spots... This whole conversation would be rather
> Let's assume that it was that simple to fix.  We'll just say that
> we modify the SysAllocString function so that when the app closes, Windows
> calls the SysFreeString function for it.  Well, then, any app that 
> specifically didn't call it for some intentioned reason would be broken and
> might crash or have some other problems.  MS then gets a lot of crap about
> changing APIs just to lock out competition....There may be reasons things
> aren't "fixed".  Such as, they may not be broken.
> -T

Generally speaking... 

The difference between a bug and an undocumented feature:

If "you shouldn't be able to do that, because it's very bad" then it's a

If "you shouldn't be able to do that, but it's good" then it's a

It's a matter of perspective... Malicious programmers/crackers/hackers
and script-kiddies love to write code that allows them to do the things
that they shouldn't be able to do, good for them, not so good for
everyone else.

Granted some programming languages are pretty much compatible across
platforms, but ultimately, the targets are not... A programmer could use
one compiler that warns: "SysAllocString called without reciprocal
SysFreeString call" and another compiler that doesn't see anything
wrong. Then again, we all know that MS doesn't even use it's own tools
to build the whole of it's OS's and it's components... What's wrong with
that picture?

So if the tools allow programmers to write code that result in memory
leaks... which is flawed, the programmer or the tools that allowed them
to do it? I guess another way to put it would be, "who's the bigger
fool... the fool, or the fool that follows it?"

The number of "undocumented features" in gcc, has dwindled
considerably... And considering how rapidly the codebase of linux
changes, I'm surprised that there aren't more issues with memory
leaks/etc than there are. The core of Windows is typically around for
years, or until they get wild hair, and even then that which has been
around for years still suffers from flaws incurred since its conception.

Sorry everybody, I'm in a talkative state of mind today... and it's
friday. So I tend to ramble a bit as happy hour gets closer ;)


Two peanuts are going down the street... one was a salted.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list