SNT
Premium
join:2002-07-17
Satellite Beach, FL
| reply to CrzyCrakr
Re: Fast!!
3 problems with that EULA.
1. ...any "OS Product"
Linux is an OS Product.
2. The list of OS's does NOT include XP
and 3. By that same EULA,
"The OS Components are provided to you by Microsoft to update,
supplement, or replace existing functionality of the applicable OS Product.
In the event your OS Product is a version of Windows NT Server, the OS
Components are deemed "Client Software." Microsoft grants you a license to use
the OS Components under the terms and conditions of the OS Product EULA for
the applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by reference) and the
terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA, provided that you
comply with all such terms and conditions. To the extent that any terms in
this Supplemental EULA conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA,
the terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect to the OS
Components."
According to this, IE is not an OS component so the paragraph you quoted doesn't apply.
In conclusion,
Linux + Wine = Free IE. |
|
number_one
join:2001-11-30
Midlothian, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Matt9
WTF? You are obviously not a programmer. Anyone with reason would understand that you can't catch every bug that a program will have before it is released. Chances are that there are a few bugs out there in widely used software that will never even be discovered at all.
If people spent too much time testing then we would never get software to use or new features added period. There has to be a balance between testing and a release schedule. It would not be "professional" to never release software because you are paranoid that there will be flaws in it (That would just be plain stupid). Ultimately your end users are the final test phase, and there will always be bugs to fix.
And after the software IS released, you don't have the option of living in a fantasy world where you can tell your users to not use your software until you can release a permanent fix. The professional thing to do is to release a temporary fix with which users can protect themselves, and then go develop a permanent bug fix that can go through all of the proper testing and reviews before being released as a patch and/or included in a future release of the software in question.
Mozilla has handled the situation quite well as many of the people in this thread have indicated. |
|
Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA
| reply to Burnt Toast
These are big -- BIG flaws. Found not even a week after a release. Users, generally just browsing the web, came across them. How hard it would it be for SOFTWARE engineers to find them? I mean, really. Take a few hours of your day, browse the web. Wow...difficult, huh? Part of me wonders if Mozilla releases products with flaws just to get attention. |
|
Burnt Toast
@204.94.x.x
| reply to Matt9
That's easy to say for someone that has probably NEVER worked with or developed software. It's not as easy as you think.
Sadly, while we wish that all software is air-tight from the day it's released, if that was the case then nothing would get released. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to Matt9
said by Matt9  : I'm not comparing Firefox to Microsoft, Firefox is Mozilla and Microsoft is Microsoft, why compare them? Because Microsoft has again started to and because they occupy the same ecological niche in the world of computing? And back in the early-mid 90's Microsoft threw a ton of resources and money to ensure that THEY would be the only browser around (my company at the time was directly affected by that)?
said by Matt9 :But WHY aren't these programmers FINDING these holes BEFORE they release the product? Don't they care? Or is it "well we'll just release this and let the users find all the holes, then do damage control from there?" Well, I can not answer that except by inference and experience. My guess would be because there is no way a small group of programmers with a limited number of systems and a finite amount of time can find all the various loopholes and still be able to release a product in a time frame somewhat less than infinity. And face it, even the best programmers and testers have blind spots in their thinking. And it may be sacrilege to the "'zilla is God" crowd, but the 'zilla team is not a large, well funded, supposedly coherent team. It is an open source cooperative effort that seems to be doing quite well despite all their handicaps.
One would assume the smaller the group and the poorer the funding, the more the problems and the slower the fixes/workarounds
I think many of the comparisons boil down to the Microsoft's historical "head in the sand until there are no other options" and the apparent fast response by the 'zilla team.
As a closing note, I had an instructer long ago that said something to the affect that it does not matter how long a piece of software has been out or how well it has been worked over, it will still be a beta until the day it ceases to be used.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA
| reply to hescominsoon
I don't care about Microsoft. I'm talking about Mozilla. Why do people always compare the 2 browsers when discussing flaws and how quickly they are fixed?
I'm not debating that Mozilla fixes them faster and more efficiently than Microsoft. I'm just trying to make the point that both exist and it seems that they release Firefox without really testing it. They find these flaws quickly a few days after a release -- why aren't they picked up on during TESTING and fixed BEFORE an official release? |
|
Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA
| reply to RayW
I use Opera and Firefox as my browsers. I'm not comparing Firefox to Microsoft, Firefox is Mozilla and Microsoft is Microsoft, why compare them?
Releasing a program with such a blatant flaw is unprofessional and inexcusable no matter what company does it. Don't they test this stuff before they release it? Seems like every Firefox release there is always some major security issue they are always rushing to fix. Yeah, I know, at least they offer patches "quickly" (compared to Microsoft) and the patches work. But WHY aren't these programmers FINDING these holes BEFORE they release the product? Don't they care? Or is it "well we'll just release this and let the users find all the holes, then do damage control from there?" |
|
CrzyCrakr
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Edgewater, MD
1 edit | reply to SNT
Using IE in anything other than Windows is breaking the EULA of IE. That is like saying...xbox games are free cuz you have a modded xbox and you copy games so you can play them. You are just circumventing the rule.
And to quote the EULA...
"NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS
95, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT WORKSTATION 4.0, MICROSOFT
WINDOWS NT SERVER 4.0, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER, ENTERPRISE EDITION 4.0 OR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER 4.0, TERMINAL SERVER EDITION), YOU ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE
NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA."
»www.microsoft.com/msdownload/iep···ense.txt
So IE is NOT free. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to SNT
said by SNT :said by wtansill :said by RDSra :
No, I don't pay anything for IE.
Yeah, you do. It's bundled into the cost of the OS itself. You just don't see it as a separate cost item. Linux + Wine = Free IE Missed that one. Still, it's the exception, but the rule.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
SNT
Premium
join:2002-07-17
Satellite Beach, FL
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill :said by RDSra :
No, I don't pay anything for IE.
Yeah, you do. It's bundled into the cost of the OS itself. You just don't see it as a separate cost item. Linux + Wine = Free IE |
|
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
 ·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Matt9
said by Matt9 :Can I take option 3? 3 being: Realizing you have such a huge flaw in the first place, and not releasing your software until it's fixed. Or is that too professional of an option for the Mozilla foundation? Ask that question of Microsoft while you're at it.
--
God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to RDSra
said by RDSra :
No, I don't pay anything for IE.
Yeah, you do. It's bundled into the cost of the OS itself. You just don't see it as a separate cost item.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
RDSra
@comcast.net | reply to RayW
No, I don't pay anything for IE. |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | reply to Matt9
Sorry, but if that were the case then Windows shouldn't even be around...let alone IE or SQL Server or any of the other buggy and exploitable software that most people praise microsoft for creating... |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to Matt9
said by Matt9 :Can I take option 3? 3 being: Realizing you have such a huge flaw in the first place, and not releasing your software until it's fixed. Or is that too professional of an option for the Mozilla foundation? Ummm, and you pay for many option three's with Microsoft and bash one in the free Mozilla/Firefox? I guess it is people like you that makes Bill Gates so rich that my entire worth is less than the lint in his pocket.
Yeah I know, Microsoft is so big compared to Mozilla they have an 'excuse' because of size.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA | reply to KrK
Can I take option 3? 3 being:
Realizing you have such a huge flaw in the first place, and not releasing your software until it's fixed.
Or is that too professional of an option for the Mozilla foundation? |
|
