FxCop, Microsoft Downloads



  • Wanted to run FxCop on some code. Went to Microsoft Download to get it. Found this page. Hit Download. It downloaded a 200-byte text file giving telling me to download and install the Windows SDK, which apparently also downloads (but does not install) FxCop. WTF.



  • ... also the link was a lie, that Windows SDK download does NOT include FxCop installer.



  • lol

    http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=6544

    Visual StudioThank you for downloading FxCop 10.0
    If your download does not start after 30 seconds, Click here

    Install Instructions

    Download the Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 4 Version 7.1
    Using elevated privileges execute FxCopSetup.exe from the %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Bin\FXCop folder.
    If you require FxCop 1.36 please download and install the Windows SDK version 7.0.


  • Turns out the FxCop stuff was included in VS 2012 anyway. God forbid they actually spent a sentence explaining that on the download page.




  • I've never come away without being frustrated when I wanted to download something from Microsoft.

    No, wait...one time, I downloaded power toys. But then, that's not supported, so it probably shouldn't count.



  • @WernerCD said:

    lol

    Thank you for downloading <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 10.0</font>
    If your download does not start after 30 seconds, Click here

    Install Instructions

    Download the Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 4 Version 7.1
    Using elevated privileges execute FxCopSetup.exe from the %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Bin\FXCop folder.
    If you require <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 1.36</font> please download and install the Windows SDK version 7.0.
     

    Did Microsoft hire a bunch of former Mozilla employees?



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @WernerCD said:

    lol

    http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=6544

    Thank you for downloading <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 10.0</font>
    If your download does not start after 30 seconds, Click here

    Install Instructions

    Download the Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 4 Version 7.1
    Using elevated privileges execute FxCopSetup.exe from the %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Bin\FXCop folder.
    If you require <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 1.36</font> please download and install the Windows SDK version 7.0.
     

    Did Microsoft hire a bunch of former Mozilla employees?

    3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8...


  • @blakeyrat said:

    this page
    When I click on the big red Download button, Firefox says that readme.txt is a .jpg file and wants to know what to do with it.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    this page
    When I click on the big red Download button, Firefox says that readme.txt is a .jpg file and wants to know what to do with it.

    Firefox Installation Instructions
    1. Download the Mozilla Firefox SDK for Firefox 

    Okay I'm going to stop right there. I was going to make a joke where I looked up the current version of Firefox and then added 10 to it or something and then I made a joke about readme.jpeg or something.

    But that's not possible. Because Mozilla refuses to tell me what version their browser is.

    Here's a screenshot:

    THANKS MOZILLA


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ben L. said:

    Because Mozilla refuses to tell me what version their browser is.
    Because clicking “What's New” underneath the green button-y thing and seeing “Firefox 28” is hard? (AIUI, their policy is that you're not really supposed to care what the product version of the browser is, so they try to avoid shoving it directly in your face…)



  • @dkf said:

    their policy is that you're not really supposed to care what the product version of the browser is,
    Because they live in a bizarro fantasy world where new versions don't break anything or cause any incompatibilities. Which is especially hilarious in the case of Firefox, who now goes out of their way to make sure every new version breaks everything.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @dkf said:

    their policy is that you're not really supposed to care what the product version of the browser is,
    Because they live in a bizarro fantasy world where new versions don't break anything or cause any incompatibilities. Which is especially hilarious in the case of Firefox, who now goes out of their way to make sure every new version breaks everything.

     

    The current beta contains their new UI which really goes out of their way and fully breaks everything forever

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Turns out the FxCop stuff was included in VS 2012 anyway. God forbid they actually spent a sentence explaining that on the download page.

     Just be careful not to confuse "FxCop" with "StyleCop"..... 



  •  On Linux the button goes to another page, with installation instructions. No download at all.

    Your experience was probably caused to the server claiming that it's a jpeg image at the content type header. I wanted to see it, but I won't get some Windows install just for that.



  • A 200kb HTML file that lets you download a 200 byte installation instructions file... They really couldn't have put that text on the website to begin with?

    Good find, you got there. Absolute irony-overloading WTF.



  • @topspin said:

    A 200kb HTML file that lets you download a 200 byte installation instructions file... They really couldn't have put that text on the website to begin with?

    Good find, you got there. Absolute irony-overloading WTF.


    The file is the same as the installation instructions for the file.



  • @topspin said:

    A 200kb HTML file that lets you download a 200 byte installation instructions file... They really couldn't have put that text on the website to begin with?
    When you click on the Download button it takes you to this page.  if you click on the Install Instructions lnk you get the same exact text that is contained in the text file you just downloaded.

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    Here's a screenshot:


    THANKS MOZILLA

    TRWTF is that the DESKTOP tab shows Firefox for Android.


  • @Eternal Density said:

    @Ben L. said:

    Here's a screenshot:


    THANKS MOZILLA

    TRWTF is that the DESKTOP tab shows Firefox for Android.
    None of the links that I could find gave me the actual full site. They assumed I was on a phone just because my laptop has an ARM processor. And then they assumed people who have phones never need to download desktop versions of Firefox. Which can be proven as follows:
    1. Nobody should ever download Firefox (other than when version 2.x/3.x was current and the only good browser available).
    2. There are no people in the set of "nobody".
    3. An empty set contains no phone users.


  • @Ben L. said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @WernerCD said:

    lol

    http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=6544

    Thank you for downloading <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 10.0</font>
    If your download does not start after 30 seconds, Click here

    Install Instructions

    Download the Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .NET Framework 4 Version 7.1
    Using elevated privileges execute FxCopSetup.exe from the %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\Bin\FXCop folder.
    If you require <font color="#FF0000">FxCop 1.36</font> please download and install the Windows SDK version 7.0.
     

    Did Microsoft hire a bunch of former Mozilla employees?

    3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8...
    I can understand omitting ME and maybe even CE, but why did you skip XP and NT?

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8...

     I heard that they name the version of Windows after the number of bugs in the code.

    It explains Millenium Edition, anyway.

     



  • @Zadkiel said:

    @Ben L. said:

    3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8...

     I heard that they name the version of Windows after the number of bugs in the code.

    It explains Millenium Edition, anyway.

     

     

    I have personally found more than 8 bugs in Windows 8

     



  • @fire2k said:

    @Zadkiel said:

    @Ben L. said:

    3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8...

     I heard that they name the version of Windows after the number of bugs in the code.

    It explains Millenium Edition, anyway.

     

     

    I have personally found more than 8 bugs in Windows 8

     


    Maybe with 7 they started using a logarithmic scale instead of a quantitative number.



  • Nah, if you remember back in the day, the slathering hordes of Slashdotters used to keep flogging some leak or study that showed that when Windows 2000 was released, there were still 64,000 unresolved bugs in their bugtracker. Needless-to-say, Windows 2000 was basically one of Microsoft most successful OSes ever.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    there were still 64,000 unresolved bugs in their bugtracker.

    Wow, that's a really buggy bugtracker. My money's on 65,535.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    there were still 64,000 unresolved bugs in their bugtracker
    Bugs or Issues? And with what level of criticality?

    It's easy to have a ton of Issues where they're things like “It'd be nice to do FooBar as well, but we don't yet” but which don't fundamentally represent something that prevents a release (or may even be something which it eventually makes sense to say “we'll never do that because it makes no business sense” to), and cosmetic GUI bugs like “button text centering wrong by 1px when text is an odd number of pixels wide” don't represent anything catastrophic. (OK, there could be a whole bunch of other bugs like that in there.) The counts of triaged Blockers and Criticals are the interesting metrics.



  • @dkf said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    there were still 64,000 unresolved bugs in their bugtracker
    Bugs or Issues? And with what level of criticality?

    Dude, I just told you the number came from Slashdot. I'm sure it was utter bullshit.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I'm sure it was utter bullshit.
    Of course. Every community has its share of sensationalist rumourmongers.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.