Debugging Microsoft.com 511
teslatug writes "Channel 9 has an interesting video interview with Chris St.Amand and Jeff Stucky who test and debug Microsoft.com. They reveal some of the big problems they used to face such as recycling processes every 5 minutes due to memory leaks and 32 bit limitations, and being unable to push more than 10 Mbits of data to their datacenters due to Windows' networking stack limitations."
What the... (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell am I supposed to watch that?
Re:What the... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe if you gave us some particuars, we could help.
Re:What the... (Score:5, Funny)
You are complaining that a Video about Microsoft.com, featuring Microsoft employees, created by Microsoft is released in Microsoft's favorite media format which plays natively in Microsoft Windows Media Player.
Umm yeah, okay, it's really a secret ploy to give you linux nuts another reason to re-compile your kernel with evil capitalist codecs in it (or some other bullshit rant).
Re:What the... (Score:3, Informative)
Easy. (Score:4, Informative)
2. xine [xinehq.de]
Not that tough, really, now is it?
Re:Easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy. (Score:3, Informative)
32-bit DLLs work fine on 64-bit x86 Linux. You have to compile MPlayer as a 32-bit program, of course, but you're still running it on a 64-bit processor, and a 64-bit Linux OS.
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are confused. MPlayer works because it is built with many native codecs that aren't dependant on x86 binary DLLs. It's the newer formats such as WMV3/RealVid3/VP5/VP6/etc that you can't play on non-x86 machines yet.
Re:Easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way to run them would be through an x86 emulator, which would probably be way too slow to result in actual watchable video.
Re:What the... (Score:5, Funny)
> How the hell am I supposed to watch that?
Well, if you're not running Windows, how the hell else are you supposed to get memory leaks? They don't just grow on B-Trees, y'know!
Re:What the... (Score:2)
Re:What the... (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't have to. You can always convert it to another format, even if you can only do it in a fraction of realtime.
Do people say you can't watch a video, just because it's downloading to slowly to be streamed in realtime?
That's it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What the... (Score:3, Funny)
I understand. They might get grotesque quantities of Unfreedom all over your compiler. Who wants that to happen? :-/
Re:What the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the... (Score:5, Insightful)
But since you mention it... you compare a content provider's decision to use HTML (an open standard which anyone may implement, and which even degrades gracefully to text, and so is usable on platforms without a web browser) with a decision to use Windows Media Video (a proprietry video codec that is only available on a single platform). Then you say, Content provider can just as easily make their content available in an open format, one which anyone can implement. Their content will then be viewable on any conceivable platform. So why are content providers so determined to turn away the fraction of their potential customers that don't run Windows?
Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, let him edit however it pleases him, but why can't they export it in something anybody can use, such as mpeg? I mostly write in TeX, but I don't expect to distribute documents by sending out a TeX or dvi file. I generate a PDF so that anybody can read it.
Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)
I own an Amiga 2000 in addition to my x86 workstation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to browse the web with it if someone decides to make something that only plays on Workbench.
Re:What the... (Score:5, Insightful)
What do yu mean, he delibertely handicapped himself. Like there's only "One True Format".
Hey, its not like they can't make the stuff available in multiple formats. Oh, right, this is Microsoft. They really can't handle multiple formats. Look at Word.
Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)
And possibly the cost of an Intel based machine, and the Windows licencing costs....but of course, those are irrelevant aren't they?
Re:What the... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I mean is, nothing aside from his own principles stop him from using a Windows PC to watch the video Nice to know that people of proincple don't use Windows :-)
BTW - this is the SAME company that wants everyone to standardize on their bullshit MS-XML, and lies about how they "won't" sue anyone, when they've already laid the groundwork to do exactly that with 6 loopholes in their bs covenant.
How do you tell if a Microsoftie is lieing?
Balmer's lips are moving.
Oh, so you're advocating software piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
What your assertion basically amounts to is: "He should run x86/32 and use an illegal copy of MS-Windows rather than run a Free (and probably free) OS and player on the hardware of his choice."
Let's put this in modern, everyday terms. Imagine Sony's media companies releasing only D
Re:What the... (Score:4, Insightful)
If he was making this complaint from inside MS, fair enough, he's a dick. But he's making this complaint from the WWW, a wild and wooly place where platform shouldn't matter as much.
Re:What the... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you insist on describing everything in terms of people, that's fine: a corporation is a group of people avoiding taking responsibility for their decisions by hiding behind a legal fiction.
Laws can, and do, change. Whole legal systems get torn down a rebuilt from scratch, sometimes better than they
Missing info... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missing info... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing info... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think you misread (Score:5, Informative)
-everphilski-
Re:Missing info... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missing info... (Score:4, Informative)
All that chimney does is provide a standard way for windows to offload the tcp-stack to a seperate processor running on the NIC.
From the white paper: "TCP Chimney offloads the TCP protocol stack to a Network Interface Card (NIC) "This has been available for high-end systems for a decade or more.
A quick google search for "linux tcp/ip accelerated" will find numerous examples of Linux cards that offload the stack.
Re:Missing info... (Score:3, Informative)
Read this [microsoft.com] instead.
Re:Missing info... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing info... (Score:4, Informative)
The
Nonetheless, Microsoft does have extraordinary bandwidth. On the day that Visual Studio was released to the MSDN, amid great fanfar, I downloaded that night at 650KB/second (the cap on my cable modem) for the entirity of the download.
Re:Missing info... (Score:4, Informative)
To think that you can slashdot Microsofts site because of a puny WMV-file is naive.
It's really naive when you consider the that Microsoft don't host their own website. Akamai does.
An example of the advantages of the new windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite amazing to think that a service as huge as messenger can run on just 25 servers!
Re:An example of the advantages of the new windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Administration, software issues, whatever. MSN isn't that amazing, especially compared to the other services.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An example of the advantages of the new windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An example of the advantages of the new windows (Score:5, Funny)
I thought (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry i though everyones problems went away when they switched to winme?
Sorry i though everyones problems went away when they switched to win98
Sorry i though everyones problems went away when they switched to win95.
all i seem to hear before a new windows release is how xxxx is stable now xxxx starts up in only 4 seconds xxxx doesnt have this problem xxxx doesnt have that problem.
Windows has had commercial server software for how long ?
and its jus
Re:Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
404 error for this story (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like a lot of crap... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, right...
Re:Sounds like a lot of crap... (Score:3, Informative)
Even Microsoft acknowledged that BSD was superior to Windows http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMisc/20 0 1/2001-MS-BSD.html [monash.edu.au]
Hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Suprised? (Score:3, Funny)
The Desk (Score:2, Funny)
M
The Video (Score:3, Insightful)
http://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0511/25766/micros oft_dot_com_debug_team_2005_MBR.wmv [microsoft.com]
While I usually RTFA (unlike most slashbots) I think we can all agree that at 40 minutes maybe 1/2 a percent of
/me waits for the transcript
And yea, I saw the cans, but the bit-rate of that video is so low, I have no clue what they were. Maybe that red one on the left is a coke or dr. pepper?
Re:The Desk (Score:5, Informative)
You see, Microsoft started the great thing a few years back where every floor was stocked with 2 giant refrigerators of free soda. The rest of the local software companies quickly moved to copy this ingenious move, so you can't program and not be in contact will all the free soda you can drink. This sounds pretty cool until you've done it for about 2 years. At that time, assuming you are not a natural soda addict, the last thing on earth you want to drink is any kind of beverage with sugar in it, because you are so unbelievably sugared out. In come Talking Rain. Talking Rain is a simple carbonated spring water, with just a hint of fruit oil added, and no sugar. Green Talking Rain adds lime oil, and Red Talking Rain adds Rasberry, I think, although being a Greener myself, I never really paid attention. The fact that only senior programmers have completed this Talking Rain pupation, allows you to easily glance at someone's trash can in their office and peg them for a Senior or Junior level developer. You will almost never see a Junior level developer drinking Talking Rain, and almost never see a Senior level NOT drink it. Kind of a free soda pecking order.
Of course I may be reading to much into this, but my Greener roots run deep
Ironic? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ironic? (Score:5, Funny)
No.
Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:4, Informative)
The new TCP stack in Vista effectively implements TCP is such a way that it removes these limitations while preserving compatibility with old stack implementations.
Alright, I'll ask the dumb question... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, TCP is a protocol, not an algorithm.
So ... if Vista has some fabulous new algorithms for implementing TCP, then why can't other OSes be patched to benefit from those algorithms also? OR, if Vista is implementing something other than TCP, then how can it be (fully) backwards compatible?
Seems like the word "compatibility" might need to be scrutinized here.
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:3, Insightful)
TCP has evolved quite a bit over the last 30 years, and new RFCs and other standards are constantly enhancing and obsoleting older versions of the standard.
You seem to imply that an implementation built today "to-the-spec" would be built against on some 30-year-old draft and design. Today's TCP standards (which include a number of "experimental", "optional", "designed-for-high-latency" etc extensions), however, are quite capable
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that no modern OS runs a 30 year old stack... but most modern OS's today still have major issues with high latency connections even when those pipes have plenty of bandwidth. There is nothing we can do about a 100ms latency when the connection is 5000 miles long, but there is a lot we can do to improve the TCP protocol to optimize for those long distance/high bandwidth connections that are becoming more and more common.
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:3, Informative)
1,073,741,824 bits per 200ms (100ms RTT)... and thats with the receiver just ACK'ing after the transfer of each 1 gig chunk, not providing intermittant ACKs throughout the transfer.
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting and powerful technology, however the general concept isn't new. More importantly it's not overcoming limitations in TCP, only limitations in the PC architecture and in OS implementations of TCP.
MS may be proposing changes to TCP to boost performance, but they don't seem to be covered by the article you are linking. In addition, TCP/IP implementations based on the improvements in various RFC's is perfectly capable of multi-gigabit throughput. I seem to remember reading a slashdot article about Internet 2 researchers seeing sustained long distance transfer rates over FTP (which is usually TCP based) that approached 100 Gb/s.
Re:Not just Windows stack limitations (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless, that has little to do with the problem Microsoft encountered in connecting two datacenters that where phsyiscally seperated by a long distance but connected with a high bandwidth pipe. See this research paper [microsoft.com].
Video transcribed below: (Score:5, Funny)
Chris St.Amand "What up bro"
Interviewer: "So like what happened when you worked on microsoft.com? Oh but first...Did you get all the chicks at the bars when you mentioned your job or what?"
Chris St.Amand "Oh totally. I'd just say, 'what up babe. I work on the microsoft.com web portal' and she'd degfrag my harddrive all night."
Interviewer: "Sweet. So what was your biggest hurrdle writing all that HTML? After all that's a complicated langaguage to master."
Chris St.Amand "It'd definelty have to be that F'ing page not found shit. You don't know how many times I'd go to microsoft.com after doing a big update and it'd just say four-oh something and the page just wouldn't show up. You know we tried to put up a 420 page not found but got in trouble with our boss."
Interviewer: "Yea totally! That would have been cool. Oh ummm let's see here. So what other problems did you have?"
Chris St.Amand: "Not being able to use FreeBSD to serve that shit. When I first heard I actually had to use Microsoft I was completely like, 'Not cool Bill. Not F'ing cool, Bill.'
Interviewer: "Any thing else? Like was it hard to get up every day in the morning knowing that your existence was updating microsoft.com HTML?"
Chris St.Amand: "Yea I tried sucicide a number of times. But then I discovered that I could just completely make up new HTML tags and that was a lot of fun."
Interviewer: "Make up HTML?"
Chris St.Amand: "Oh yea, we're microsoft. When I first started they told me that no other browsers exist other then that big blue F'ing E and that no other operating systems exist. And that I could do whatever I wanted to do. So I just started making up *ALL KINDS* of crazy ass HTML.
Interviewer: "Cool dude. You rock. Anything else you want to mention?"
Chris St.Amand: "Yea you know all that crazy F'ed up HTML that all of our products output? You know without indention and messed up question marks everywhere? That was me. I was all hung over the day I added that. And that's about it."
Interviewer: Thanks Chris, I'm sure you'll go down in infamancy for such a piece of F'ing shit web page and end up in some lame ass 'Don't write web pages like this' hall of fame.
Chris St.Amand: "Peace out and remeber to eat your greens not smoke 'em!"
Design flows shoudln't get patched ... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a big problem of software made by companys:
1 - The company's cashflow is based arround selling new versions of the software
2 - They can't sell to it's customers improvements that they customers can't see
3 - There is a fixed time that can go by beetween one release and the next one
4 - Resources are limited
Because of this, a major redesign is something that won't be profitable, because only the advanced users will note the changes, but 99% of their customers won't, so the software won't sell well. Bug fixes also won't sell, because they are also unvisible to the naked eye of the majority of the userbase, and also customers expect those changes to be free.
So, some companys only can expect revenue from a given software once a year, and they have to invest into that software, a given set of limited resources over, say, 6 months, when they have to freeze the featureset so they can start debugging. Seeing which things sell, they will obviously focus their atention on: New Features, and a nicer GUI.
OTH, a project that doesn't have a company running it, can just get out lots of upgrades, when needed, and focus their time on making the software better, even if some of the changes made to the software won't be seen by most of it's users.
With software prices dropping, and Free Software proving to be a better option, the budget of software companys will be even more limited, and we won't see this situation changing anytime soon.
Compound TCP (Score:3, Informative)
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.
Err ... (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, thought so. I suck.
More memeory, need 64 bit (Score:3, Insightful)
They reveal some of the big problems they used to face such as recycling processes every 5 minutes due to memory leaks and 32 bit limitations, and being unable to push more than 10 Mbits of data to their datacenters due to Windows' networking stack limitations."
Micro$oft needs 64 bit so it can leak more memory faster and stay running. Or at least this is how I read this.
As for 10mbs, maybe they should put a Linux/BSD/UNIX cache in front of those servers like MSNBC did to get through the last olympics.
Struggling beyond 10Mbit/s? (Score:3, Interesting)
I look at Solaris (err, OpenSolaris) and how it can now push a 10Gb/s interface at line speed [sun.com] (or close to it) and MS has struggled up until recently to get satisfactory speeds above 10Mbit/s ?
Yet another "how do users/admins accept this as OK" thought going through my head re: Windows internals.
Re:Struggling beyond 10Mbit/s? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem was connecting two datacenters that were physically seperated by a long distance but connected with a high bandwidth pipe... the TCP protocol has problems with this because of latency issues.
Read this [microsoft.com] to see how they solved it.
Re:Struggling beyond 10Mbit/s? (Score:3, Informative)
#2: -10 points for using "synergy" in technical info (linked ms.com article)
Re:Struggling beyond 10Mbit/s? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or are you just replying to the 3 sentance summary without any information or knowing what you're talking about?
Microsoft's problems were with the TCP specifications, which they adhered to TOO closely. From the paper, NOT specific to windows (specific to any fully compliant TCP implementation), "under a 10GBPS link with 100ms del
Remember Hotmail? (Score:5, Interesting)
The following is just hearsay, as I've never actually worked for MS. But a couple of engineer buddies I used to work with did some subcontracting for MS, and they said they deployed a whole lot of internal-facing *nix servers during that period. I tend to believe it, because the MS security guys who taught some seminars I attended wouldn't confirm or deny that they used any Linux internally. If they could have denied it in clean conscience, wouldn't they have done so emphatically?
Re:Remember Hotmail? (Score:3, Informative)
It still can't stand up to the weight. Have you tried using Hotmail in the middle of the day and get those SERVER TOO BUSY errors? If it even responds!
Re:Remember Hotmail? (Score:3, Insightful)
Haydn.
Oh, now I get it! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't answer that.
Re:Oh, now I get it! (Score:3, Funny)
I guess $40 Billion is good for something!
Re:Oh, now I get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, just the geeks of your time zone - some of us were already asleep...
Reminds me of the old days (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, "old technology" couldn't do anything better than new stuff like NT right? Come to think of it, there's not a LOT of difference between XP's kernel and NT's from what I understand... a few bug fixes here and there... but basically, it uses the same vulnerable messaging scheme and drivers running at ring-0 and all that.
Re:Reminds me of the old days (Score:3, Interesting)
Drivers generally run in kernel mode in Linux, and most other operating systems for that matter. One of the few that
It's fascinating... (Score:5, Funny)
How times change...
I worked for an ISP that was hosting a M$ site ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I worked for an ISP that was hosting a M$ site (Score:3, Insightful)
IIS has a cool feature (Score:3, Funny)
Kudos to microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I've missed the comments, but what no one seems to mention here is that these guys--clearly both geeks at heart (in a good way)--really are peeling back a lot of the layers of MS's site. The candor about their security problems, the 2gb memory issues, and a variety of other things was refreshing.
Heck, they even mention firefox.
Good work all. Good work.
Microsoft S-s-s-security (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft S-s-s-security (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:32-bit... yeah, that's it. (Score:2)
Re:10 Mbits PER-? (Score:2)
Re:10 Mbits PER-? (Score:2)
Re:There is a alternative.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Recycling processes is normal for windows (Score:4, Interesting)
The GNU/Linux servers were the ones with more hits, and the ones that required less atention. The windows servers were a pandora box of problems. IIS just can't hold up by itself, if you just serve static pages you are ok, but when people starts using that asp + odbc shit, you have to restart IIS every 5 fucking minutes. We used to receive a stupid "too many conections" from ODBC in our log, and restarting the stupid services woudln't do a damn thing, all you could do was restart the machine, Yes, restart a SERVER. That's about the worse thing a sysadmin can go through, the panic of not knowing if that crappy windows was going to come back up or not. OTH, our GNU/Linux machines with sites running a variety of CGI apps (PHP, Perl, etc), all using MySQL, supported 5 times the load on the windows machines without complaining, and i'm talking about 300 sites on simple x86 hardware, less powerfull than the one on the windows machines, that died with less than 100 sites
Re:Recycling processes is normal for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not because of IIS; it's because of the people writing the ASP apps and stupid admins not configuring IIS correctly. If you have stupid people writing applications, those applications have a tendency of doing stupid things. Combine that with admins who don't properly isolate that applications running on IIS and you've got a recipe for requiring an IIS restart "every 5 fucking minutes".
Give me 5 minutes and I can write a nice app that takes down Apache no problem. A few infinite loops, perhaps each creating a dozen new database connections and allocating a massive string buffer in memory.
IIS 6.0 has a lot of features built into it that allow for admins to configure application pools to more effectively isolate applications. You can configure those application pools to recycle automatically given certain criteria (like memory usage, CPU usage, # req/sec, @ req/total, etc.), and the pools are isolated from each other so that if one dies due to a misbehaving application, the other applications on the system are not affected.
We used to receive a stupid "too many conections" from ODBC in our log, and restarting the stupid services woudln't do a damn thing, all you could do was restart the machine, Yes, restart a SERVER.
Perhaps that's all you could do, but somebody who spent more than 10 minutes reading about administering IIS would know to recycle the ODBC COM+ application to clear out the connection pool. Then they would find the stupid people writing that crappy applications and fire them, or at least isolate their applications in a separate app pool or worker process. (Dllhost.exe.)
Spare me the anecdotal stories of your LAMP solutions doing so much better than your Windows solutions. You have absolutely no credibility given your complete ignorance.
Re:Recycling processes is normal for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Apache, like IIS, has a finite number of threads it uses to handle incoming requests. If you use up all those threads, Apache, and IIS, can't respond. You either must increase the number of threads or users will be denied access to the site. Eventually, you run out of system resources. In either case, you've prevent one (or likely a lot more) request from being fulfilled by the web server. End of story.
Your example is a foolish one. You never caused Apache to run out of resources. If you had, it would have "crashed" as the originally posted meant it... it couldn't handle further requests. That wasn't because Apache is superior in some way to IIS, it's because your clicking didn't use up all the threads. Simple as that. That's what I was explaining... the same thing can happen to Apache as can happen to IIS. Just because Apache is open source doesn't make it invulnerable to resource exhaustion due to inept programmers.
No, its Windows that pretty much has no credibility. The one thing it DOES have that nobody else has is the widest selection of trojans, viruses, worms, and idiot users.
That and the majority of the fortune 500 companies running on it. Windows is a fully capable server platform, and there are countless examples to back that up... just as there are countless examples that show that Linux can be a capable server platform. My point was that IIS is not inherently flawed as the original poster suggested. In fact, IIS 6.0 is in my opinion the best web application server on the market if cost is not an issue. (Windows licenses can be too expensive for a small company.) It's had extremely few security holes (FAR fewer than Apache has in the same timeframe), it's very fast (thanks to advanced features like kernel mode listeners), it's extremely reliable thanks to application isolation, process recycling, and great management and monitoring tools, and it's host to many excellent development platforms from PHP to ASP.NET.
IIS 7.0 is shaping up to be even better with some great ways to customize the web server to make it as bare metal as possible if that's what you want.... taking a hint from Apache in this case.
But for you to sit there and question the intelligence of somebody who uses Windows as a server platform shows your ignorance. It shows you don't bother to really examine alternatives to what you're comfortable with. When choosing a platform for a project I make sure to consider as many things as possible... from portability requirements, to intellectual property issues, to performance, to cost, to ease of development. That's my job as a software architect. Sometimes I choose LAMP for its very low initial cost. (Basically free.) Sometimes I pick ASP.NET because of how robust the
Regardless, there are lots of options out there and until you're able to pick the best one for the job at hand you're just going to be limiting yourself for no good reason. Both career wise and intellectually.
Re:OMG (Score:3, Insightful)
People like us aren't running web sites that process 10 to 15 Gigabits per second.
Re:10Mbits/s? really? (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that that article talks about issues that had been long since solved by 1996, and list the solutions to them? In the case of the partic
Re:10Mbits/s? really? (Score:3, Informative)
Take a truck. A huge one. Fill it up with recorded DVD's and send it over a hundred miles distance.
You'll have huge bandwidth.
But wait, somehow a DVD got lost in transit. What now ?
You have to phone back and have a taxi to pick it up and deliver the missing DVD.
As you need the last DVD, you'll have to wait. Your bandwidth decreases.
It's pretty much costly for you to do so if you miss a DVD.
So you decide to take only a hundred DVD's per truck and using multiple smaller trucks. But someho
Re:10Mbits/s? really? (Score:5, Informative)
A quick web search says round trip times to mars are between 10-50 minutes. Say 60 minutes * 60 seconds = 360 gigabits of window space to achieve full line rate. Now consider some minor packet loss and even with SACK you're buffering an unreasonable amount of data.
Annoying that the parent got modded up with bad information and this post will likely be passed over.
Re:10Mbits/s? really? (Score:3, Informative)
Each end of a TCP connection allocates a receive buffer. The available empty space in this buffer is mentioned as part of the header on every packet. A TCP implementation allowed to continue sending packets to the other machine as long as there is spa
Obligatory security comment... (Score:4, Funny)
"So is your security getting better?..."
Aside, its funny to hear them concede that they're actually having to adjust for other browsers visiting their home page.
"Use standard-compliant code? Heresy!..."