Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Blue Ink Blue Ink
  • 0xB16B00B5

    Juvenile as this is, I always consider Easter Egging fun, at least as long as it's not in the customer's face. Not something I would waste my time with these days, but I wouldn't even make much of it; considering it sexist means blowing the whole thing out of proportion: it would be like an induist taking offence for all the 0xDEADBEEF.

    Not to mention that I met a few female developers that weren't above such stunts. Sexist my 0xA55, that's just someone trying to make a case out of thin air.

    P.S.: If there's something I found really disturbing about this story is the fact that they used 0xB00B135 in a previous occasion. That's distasteful and disrespectful of hexadecimal which has a perfectly usable "E" in it.

  • Yet another smartphone OS...

    @spivonious:I wouldn't bet on their instant death either: if the phones aren't complete junk they'll find their own supporters. Firefox is a recognizable brand, so it might be tempting for some OEM to try and differentiate. It remains to be seen if and how this can affect Google.

    More specifically, I always thought about Google as the sugar daddy of OSS: creepy beyond belief, but too rich to send packing. This might indicate that something is changing, or at least that Mozilla wants that to change. I have a hunch the IP battlefield is going to become weird...

    Interesting times ahead.

  • Yet another smartphone OS...

    @spivonious: my bet is "relevance": they were the only major browser vendor out there without a smartphone for which theirs was the default and only choice. Which isn't the reason why the others are making smartphones, but then everybody seems to be fighting a different war...

    I won't hold my breath for the glorious fates of the Firefox OS: unless they offer something that simply blows the competitors away, they'll have to face the same difficulties that WP7 faced (late to the party, no apps) except that it's now a lot later in the game and, of course, Mozilla doesn't have the kind of cash Microsoft has.

  • Big Whoop

    @Bass: Problem exists between screen and user. Smiley

  • Let's just call him 'goober'

    , PaoloM wrote


    I guess he needed a snack.

    Hmm... finger food?

  • The Internet, 2000's, IE6/7/8, Microsoft, etc. what exactly happened?

    , fanbaby wrote

    I used to think that the saga was caused on purpose by Microsoft to sabotage the web, after all a truly open web conflicts with Microsoft business plan. But then i remember "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". 

    So what's your take on the "dark years of the net". Was it dark? Is it still dark? etc.


    Let me tell you a different story. In the late '90s, browsers were implementing tons of features, sometimes to satisfy actual needs, sometimes just to one-up their competitors. And so it happened that both the largest browser vendors at the time implemented CSS wrong. And made enough noise about CSS that people started to use it.

    Any reasonable standards body, under these conditions, would have recognized that their definition of the CSS box model had been replaced by a de facto standard and amended their definition. This would have made 99% of the installed browsers compliant overnight. But the W3C feared that that would have set a precedent that would have taken the web away from them, by people actually implementing browsers (oh, the horror). Stupidity took over, and the CSS standard stayed as it was.

    Fast forward a couple of years, the same thing happened. IE had won the war, it was at some ridiculous percentage, and Microsoft proposed VML. Again, the W3C decided they didn't care about vector graphics on the web, and decided to reject the solution already available on 99% of the installed browsers and go with SVG. Which is vastly equivalent, except that it forbade use of vector graphics for more than a decade. I don't know whether it was malice or stupidity; I bet it was both, with a pinch of the "stick it to the big guy" sentiment.

    That's my take of the "dark years of the net": it was a political match that we all collectively lost, in terms of features that could have been and weren't, standards made incompatilbe on purpose, long hours lost fixing bugs.

    Microsoft paid for (some of) its sins, the W3C didn't and it's unlikely it ever will. But the web will be a dark place until the W3C changes its ways and becomes what a standards body should be: a place where common sense trumps politics, good engineering practice trumps philosophy and the best interest of the end user (if not developers) is all that matters.

    Never attribute to malice alone that which can be adequately explained by stupidity and malice and shortsightedness.

    P.S.: FrontPage was "the web for the rest of us". It allowed you to put up a webpage without knowing a thing about HTML, CSS, JS. The result usually wasn't worth the effort, but that's what I think made the web truly open and accessible: the concept that the average Joe could actually buy a domain and put up his homepage with little more effort than it took to edit a regular document.

    That's good engineering: making stuff that's good enough, stuff that works and enables everybody else to do something that would normally be beyond their reach. That was BASIC, that was DOS, that was FrontPage. Those who complain that "it's not semantic" are elitist boneheads that may be fit for academia, but shouldn't ever be allowed near something that's actually useful.

  • WP7 and IMAP emails

    Yes, with the due exceptions (IIRC the CA role requires an Enterprise server, and makecert is better known to developers than IT). All of this, including OpenSSL, requires an IT dept that know their stuff, and when a company is pinching pennies enough not to buy a certificate that's certainly not a given.

    If you want a sense of what the state of the art is in the wild, just bing "renew exchange certificate". Just don't blame me if your hairline recedes by an inch.

    Again, I'm not saying you cannot make this work, I'm just saying that the defaults make things worse than they should be, for no obvious reason I can see. And make WP7 an unwelcome choice for many of my customers.

  • WP7 and IMAP emails

    , blowdart wrote


    Of course considering that SSL Certs are like $20 these days using a self signed one is a silly decision. Especially as that will also get used for S/SMTP so inbound emails will see it, and the sending system may decided not to send as it's not a valid trusted cert. (assuming everything is on the same host).

    I could never find anything that cheap, but that's beside the point. If companies are allowed to use a DIY certificate, it doesn't make sense to force them to trust yet another DIY certificate every year.

    And it makes even less sense to make you send a certificate to a device. Not exactly material for a "Smoked by Windows Phone" challenge.

  • WP7 and IMAP emails

    , blowdart wrote


    They don't have to expire every year you know. You just need to create them right Smiley

    I don't have troubles believing that. But since that's the default for Exchange Server, both for creation and renewal, that's the setup I invariably find. Hence the irritation.

    The excellent reasons why a company should stop trusting its own certificates every 12 months by default are way out of my depth...

  • WP7 and IMAP emails

    A word of warning: if your email server requires SSL, expect problems.

    I had my fair share thanks to self-signed certificates (Exchange Server and an IMAP server of unknown pedigree), and for other unexplained certificate problems (a Lotus Domino, with a certificate that appears to be valid and trusted all the way up).

    Needless to say, an iPhone will just ask you (once!) if you want to accept the certificate, install it and just work. With a WP7 you have to get hold of the actual certificate, email it to the device, install it from the attachment, reboot the phone.

    And since self-signed certificates expire every year, you never run out of fun...