Slashdot Mirror

You ever hear of "last known good configuration"? That is a control set. For more info see here. Second, why in the hell would you tell ANYONE to type out a registry key anyway? That is classic "Open up Bash and type" thinking and is no more useful in Windows than trying to teach CMD to someone running OSX. Instead you say "your problem is x? here, let me send you a reg key." they run it, and voila! problem solved. I have run into a nasty bug with certain chipsets and the Windows "No Device" found under sound. How long does it take me to fix? About 30 seconds. They run the "Winsndsrvr" key I send them, reboot, and they are good to go. A hell of a lot easier than telling anyone to type anything, and a hell of a lot less likely they'll fuck something up. BTW if anyone has trouble with the "No device" sound bug under XP, just email me and I'll send you the key,works on 2K and 2K3 as well.

As for documentation you can bitch at MSFT about a lot of things, but lack of docs ain't one of them. Go to the MSFT KB site and type in "registry" and you'll find everything from overviews to in depth articles written by Mark Russinovich, pretty much THE guy when it comes to Windows internals. I don't know how many times when I was struggling with Linux I was told dismissively to RTFM only to find TFM was a TODO later.

But ultimately that is the nice thing about today: You have an abundance of choice. Don't like Windows? There is the *BSD, Unix, Haiku, a bazillion flavors of Linux, OSX, etc. Never before have we had so many choices to choose from without having to throw away our hardware and start over. But whether you like it or not the registry works and it works quite well, and combined with GPOs and AD it makes controlling 50 or 5000 desktops from a central location so simple I could teach my 15 year old to run an AD server inside of a month. Since you mentioned Gconf I can assume you are a Linux guy and I've noticed they rarely like anything that isn't done their way, just see all the screams at replacing XServer with Wayland as an example. If a pile of txt files works for you, hey I'm damned glad for ya. But we Windows admins actually find the reg quite useful, and the users frankly never see it, just as they never see the CLI.

Chromium's browser process can't modify files or registry. It has the same feature IE likes to call Protected Mode. Chromium's XP impl emulates PM with restricted access tokens. Chromium on Linux is a little different; it's described over at LWN.

Chromium's browser process can't modify files or registry. It has the same feature IE likes to call Protected Mode. Chromium's XP impl emulates PM with restricted access tokens. Chromium on Linux is a little different; it's described over at LWN.

Chromium's browser process can't modify files or registry. It has the same feature IE likes to call Protected Mode. Chromium's XP impl emulates PM with restricted access tokens. Chromium on Linux is a little different; it's described over at LWN.

No DEP is both hardware based and software based.

Microsoft has software based DEP listed as: "An additional set of Data Execution Prevention security checks have been added to Windows XP SP2. These checks, known as software-enforced DEP, are designed to block malicious code that takes advantage of exception-handling mechanisms in Windows. Software-enforced DEP runs on any processor that can run Windows XP SP2. By default, software-enforced DEP helps protect only limited system binaries, regardless of the hardware-enforced DEP capabilities of the processor."

You can read all about it here

I think you're over reacting about Video on the web, and I can't understand how anything about what you've said is insightful. None of those pages really tell me anything about what the browser really does. Most of it is buzz words, but I guess if thats informative for you.. Also it only took me a split second to find the user guide on flock's page.

Introductory videos being your main introduction are a stupid idea, not because of esoteric technical/philosophical reasons (I have and use Flash! I even use Facebook, and Flash in Facebook). They're a stupid way of going about things because they expected to make noise. A lot of people are often already listening to music, or in a room with someone that is listening to music/watching television/having a conversation, and would rather not be interrupted by some stupid video that is done better with pictures and text.

It's not like this is rocket science. Virtually all the major browsers make a damn feature of their features:

Opera has a link to this right in its splash box:
http://www.opera.com/browser/

and Firefox this:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/

Chrome has this:
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/more/index.html

Even IE has this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/features/faster.aspx

All these took literally split seconds to locate on the page. The Flock page is a mess.

P.S. I used to use Flock, so I was idly curious about what it does nowadays. I couldn't be bothered tracking that down on their convoluted so I left. Nice going designers!

I guess I should have. http://acid3.acidtests.org/ is a good measure of the various rendering implementations of browsers.

The problem: older sites are hacked together to accommodate bugs and workarounds in older browsers. Changing the source on-the-fly could potentially break these workarounds.

Even Microsoft says so, in their not-so-many-words way:

Some Web sites are designed for older browsers. You may experience compatibility issues on these sites until they are updated for Internet Explorer 8 or for Internet Explorer 9 Beta.

You are right. C# 3.0 spec has also been published here http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/8/8/388e7205-bc10-4226-b2a8-75351c669b09/CSharp%20Language%20Specification.doc, but it wasn't ECMA certified yet.

Unless I am mistaken, then 2003 revision included C# 2.0, and the 2006 version I linked to includes C# 3.0.

You're mistaken. The 2003 revision was for C# 1.1, and the 2006 one was for C# 2.0. This basically corresponds to .NET & Visual Studio release cycle - VS2003 / .NET 1.1 had C# 1.1, and VS2005 / .NET 2.0 had C# 2.0.

There has been no spec which covers C# 3.0 and above yet, even though the current stable release is 4.0. There is a published language spec directly from MS, but it's not Ecma or ISO standardized.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

Shame really that someone couldn't even do the research to see if such wild claims about MS are in any way true.

The new Nokia CEO is Stephen Elop, the former head of Microsoft Corp.’s business unit.
Source.

Also there have been talk of and/or more integration of their services:
https://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/aug07/08-22NokiaMSLiveServicesPR.mspx
https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/aug09/08-12pixipr.mspx
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/15/will-microsoft-and-nokia-team-up-to-take-on-apple-google/

The new Nokia CEO is Stephen Elop, the former head of Microsoft Corp.’s business unit.
Source.

Also there have been talk of and/or more integration of their services:
https://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/aug07/08-22NokiaMSLiveServicesPR.mspx
https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/aug09/08-12pixipr.mspx
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/15/will-microsoft-and-nokia-team-up-to-take-on-apple-google/

Don't spout FUD. If someone is actually suited by using a Mac Mini server, they would be totally fine with the lowest tier Windows Small Biz Server. Which up to a certain number of users, doesn't have CALs to pay. And don't use the excuse of factoring in cost of upgrades from version to version because OSX has the same treadmill.

From MS itself:MS disagrees with you. Base price for 2008 Small Business server is $1,089 with 5 users/devices. Additional users is $77 per user or you can buy them in packs. Either way, you are paying more than for OS X. I'm sure where this "No CAL required" version is but it's not listed in the pricing. The cheapest server I could find is $469 Web Server version only (no users).

A main problem with true comparison is that MS has so many options that it takes a Windows Server expert just to figure which one your business may need. If you get it wrong, you'll have to pay for upgrades and go to the trouble of upgrading/re-intalling Windows. With Snow Leopard Server, there is only the unlimited user version.

And I'm not sure what that last sentence means. Everyone has to pay for upgrades when it comes to commercial OS. Unlike Apple, if you are a large enough company you might negotiate with MS to get a better deal than the list price. Also most SA licenses normally come with upgrade discounts. With Apple it is the same price for everyone.

f anything, a really small business should be paying for certain hostings. Good ones are inexpensive for what you get and run by professionals. When it gets to a certain size, you can run proper servers by hiring an admin and then YOU CAN USE LINUX.

Not everyone who needs a server requires hosting. You need hosting if you require external web services. If you only need an internal database server, a file server, basically anything that needs to be kept internal. Yes if your company is large enough, you should hire an admin. But most small businesses are typically less than 50 employees and only a handful of them may use a computer. These businesses need server expertise but don't have the money to hire and maintain a server infrastructure.

Friends don't let friends use OSX as a server.

There are many, many businesses that use OS X server. Some co-location businesses like Cybermill and Server Logisitics use both X-Serves and Mac Minis as servers. Some businesses may use OS X server if they have a large number of Macs as it integrates well with them. Your statement would be the same as if you said: "Friends don't let friends use Windows as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Linux as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Unix as a server." All of these different OS's have a place.

Don't spout FUD. If someone is actually suited by using a Mac Mini server, they would be totally fine with the lowest tier Windows Small Biz Server. Which up to a certain number of users, doesn't have CALs to pay. And don't use the excuse of factoring in cost of upgrades from version to version because OSX has the same treadmill.

From MS itself:MS disagrees with you. Base price for 2008 Small Business server is $1,089 with 5 users/devices. Additional users is $77 per user or you can buy them in packs. Either way, you are paying more than for OS X. I'm sure where this "No CAL required" version is but it's not listed in the pricing. The cheapest server I could find is $469 Web Server version only (no users).

A main problem with true comparison is that MS has so many options that it takes a Windows Server expert just to figure which one your business may need. If you get it wrong, you'll have to pay for upgrades and go to the trouble of upgrading/re-intalling Windows. With Snow Leopard Server, there is only the unlimited user version.

And I'm not sure what that last sentence means. Everyone has to pay for upgrades when it comes to commercial OS. Unlike Apple, if you are a large enough company you might negotiate with MS to get a better deal than the list price. Also most SA licenses normally come with upgrade discounts. With Apple it is the same price for everyone.

f anything, a really small business should be paying for certain hostings. Good ones are inexpensive for what you get and run by professionals. When it gets to a certain size, you can run proper servers by hiring an admin and then YOU CAN USE LINUX.

Not everyone who needs a server requires hosting. You need hosting if you require external web services. If you only need an internal database server, a file server, basically anything that needs to be kept internal. Yes if your company is large enough, you should hire an admin. But most small businesses are typically less than 50 employees and only a handful of them may use a computer. These businesses need server expertise but don't have the money to hire and maintain a server infrastructure.

Friends don't let friends use OSX as a server.

There are many, many businesses that use OS X server. Some co-location businesses like Cybermill and Server Logisitics use both X-Serves and Mac Minis as servers. Some businesses may use OS X server if they have a large number of Macs as it integrates well with them. Your statement would be the same as if you said: "Friends don't let friends use Windows as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Linux as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Unix as a server." All of these different OS's have a place.

You might want to learn about Portable Apps.

I'm aware of them; they're Windows applications packaged to run on removable media. But these aren't very useful if your application is for a different operating system, or if your administrator has established a Software Restriction Policy against executing binaries on removable media or in the user's home directory, or against executing any binary that the administrator has not signed. For details see my reply to evilviper.

Web browsers are everywhere, because they are useful applications. They weren't written in Flash, or Javascript, or anything like that. That's part of the reason they are useful to begin with.

Unlike your application, the web browser has already been approved by the appliance maker or the PC administrator.

Do you need some massive web interface made of hacked up javascript, or do you just need to have a little app on the server that outputs plain old HTML?

On machines with an intermittent connection to the Internet, a massive JavaScript interface using a cache manifest and localStorage can be helpful.

Games? Developers are just be stupid by not putting it in a single EXE that can be run directly.

This would need the code and data combined into one file, much like a self-extracting archive. That could suffice for Windows, but Mac OS X and Linux can't run Windows EXEs without CrossOver Games or some other Wine variant. JavaScript runs on any platform with a modern browser.

Even a seriously locked down computer will let users download and run a file.

Not always. The administrator of a PC used by the public can set Software Restriction Policies to block execution of, for example, executables located inside %USERPROFILE% (the user's home directory).

And if you're on a ridiculously locked down system which doesn't allow even that... maybe you'll have to live without playing that one game on this computer you're obviously not supposed to be playing games on...

Video game consoles and other set-top appliances typically can't run native binaries that are not digitally signed by the manufacturer of the appliance, but some can run web pages using JavaScript and/or SWFs using ActionScript. Yet the majority of home users routinely buy consoles instead of home theater PCs.

No, it's a forensics bundle from Microsoft. No wonder it tastes awful. ;-)

And just how does it decide what a valid AV package is?

The software company just needs to register their product with Microsoft. From http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457154.aspx.

"Virus protection

The Security Center checks for the presence of antivirus software using queries for specific WMI providers that are made available by participating vendors. If the information is available, the Security Center service also determines whether the software is up-to-date and whether real-time scanning is turned on."

Good! I personally love Microsoft Security Essentials. It does exactly what you want in a Virus Protection Program: 1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected" 2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!

It's only totally free for home users and very small businesses. Check the EULA http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/eula.aspx.

Actually you have to download it from MS. Also you can use Virtual PC for free on Win 7 Home, you would just need an extra XP license and to install your own VM; then you can install the integration components and have the same experience. The problem is you have to dig to find the WVPC-only download.

Dos 6.22/Win 3.11 will also work on Windows Virtual PC in Win 7. I just copied over my VPC 2007 VM and WVPC upgraded it as soon as I opened it.

I invite you to look at your TCP connections and all those instances of svchost.exe running on your system... and you never had to click "Allow" to let them communicate over the net.

And I invite you to use SysInternals’ Process Explorer and find out what those actually are.

It's all a bit complicated. Let me try to explain.

First of all, VS2010 does indeed use WPF 4, though not for all UI elements (it was not a grounds-up rewrite). But text editor is fully WPF, and so are menus and toolbars. Tool windows may or may not be on a case-by-case basis.

WPF 4, unlike previous versions, does use DirectWrite when available. This is indeed the same technology that IE uses, and it provides for "perfect rendering", where font glyphs are not snapped to vertical pixel boundaries, and therefore proper text size is maintained without distortion. It should be noted, though, that even past WPF versions used the same kind of rendering, though they had their own text layout engine.

Now, DirectWrite actually has a flag which disables "perfect rendering" and enables pixel-snapping for fonts, with the result being not pixel-by-pixel identical to the traditional GDI ClearType, but pretty close to it. WPF 4 exposes it as a property on all widgets.

VS2010 beta 2 actually used the "perfect" rendering, and there were a lot of user complaints about text being blurry etc. This MS Connect ticket (which I had created, though the problem was reported long before on various forums and blogs) summarizes the issue Consequently, WPF added the aforementioned property, and it was used from VS2010 RC to enable ClearType-style rendering for all windows in the application.

From what I've seen in IE9 beta, they use DirectWrite, but they do not use that same flag. So their rendering is different from what you see in VS2010, and specifically more blurry. I wonder if they'll end up going through the same change by the time they release - I've actually suggested that they do so.

It's all a bit complicated. Let me try to explain.

First of all, VS2010 does indeed use WPF 4, though not for all UI elements (it was not a grounds-up rewrite). But text editor is fully WPF, and so are menus and toolbars. Tool windows may or may not be on a case-by-case basis.

WPF 4, unlike previous versions, does use DirectWrite when available. This is indeed the same technology that IE uses, and it provides for "perfect rendering", where font glyphs are not snapped to vertical pixel boundaries, and therefore proper text size is maintained without distortion. It should be noted, though, that even past WPF versions used the same kind of rendering, though they had their own text layout engine.

Now, DirectWrite actually has a flag which disables "perfect rendering" and enables pixel-snapping for fonts, with the result being not pixel-by-pixel identical to the traditional GDI ClearType, but pretty close to it. WPF 4 exposes it as a property on all widgets.

VS2010 beta 2 actually used the "perfect" rendering, and there were a lot of user complaints about text being blurry etc. This MS Connect ticket (which I had created, though the problem was reported long before on various forums and blogs) summarizes the issue Consequently, WPF added the aforementioned property, and it was used from VS2010 RC to enable ClearType-style rendering for all windows in the application.

From what I've seen in IE9 beta, they use DirectWrite, but they do not use that same flag. So their rendering is different from what you see in VS2010, and specifically more blurry. I wonder if they'll end up going through the same change by the time they release - I've actually suggested that they do so.

It's all a bit complicated. Let me try to explain.

First of all, VS2010 does indeed use WPF 4, though not for all UI elements (it was not a grounds-up rewrite). But text editor is fully WPF, and so are menus and toolbars. Tool windows may or may not be on a case-by-case basis.

WPF 4, unlike previous versions, does use DirectWrite when available. This is indeed the same technology that IE uses, and it provides for "perfect rendering", where font glyphs are not snapped to vertical pixel boundaries, and therefore proper text size is maintained without distortion. It should be noted, though, that even past WPF versions used the same kind of rendering, though they had their own text layout engine.

Now, DirectWrite actually has a flag which disables "perfect rendering" and enables pixel-snapping for fonts, with the result being not pixel-by-pixel identical to the traditional GDI ClearType, but pretty close to it. WPF 4 exposes it as a property on all widgets.

VS2010 beta 2 actually used the "perfect" rendering, and there were a lot of user complaints about text being blurry etc. This MS Connect ticket (which I had created, though the problem was reported long before on various forums and blogs) summarizes the issue Consequently, WPF added the aforementioned property, and it was used from VS2010 RC to enable ClearType-style rendering for all windows in the application.

From what I've seen in IE9 beta, they use DirectWrite, but they do not use that same flag. So their rendering is different from what you see in VS2010, and specifically more blurry. I wonder if they'll end up going through the same change by the time they release - I've actually suggested that they do so.

It's all a bit complicated. Let me try to explain.

First of all, VS2010 does indeed use WPF 4, though not for all UI elements (it was not a grounds-up rewrite). But text editor is fully WPF, and so are menus and toolbars. Tool windows may or may not be on a case-by-case basis.

WPF 4, unlike previous versions, does use DirectWrite when available. This is indeed the same technology that IE uses, and it provides for "perfect rendering", where font glyphs are not snapped to vertical pixel boundaries, and therefore proper text size is maintained without distortion. It should be noted, though, that even past WPF versions used the same kind of rendering, though they had their own text layout engine.

Now, DirectWrite actually has a flag which disables "perfect rendering" and enables pixel-snapping for fonts, with the result being not pixel-by-pixel identical to the traditional GDI ClearType, but pretty close to it. WPF 4 exposes it as a property on all widgets.

VS2010 beta 2 actually used the "perfect" rendering, and there were a lot of user complaints about text being blurry etc. This MS Connect ticket (which I had created, though the problem was reported long before on various forums and blogs) summarizes the issue Consequently, WPF added the aforementioned property, and it was used from VS2010 RC to enable ClearType-style rendering for all windows in the application.

From what I've seen in IE9 beta, they use DirectWrite, but they do not use that same flag. So their rendering is different from what you see in VS2010, and specifically more blurry. I wonder if they'll end up going through the same change by the time they release - I've actually suggested that they do so.

Um no, it really doesn't "remain to be seen" at all. The very first preview of IE9 (10 months ago, now) had CSS rounded corners, for example.

You could always try out the tests on http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Default.html in your browser of choice. They all work on IE9, and usually better (faster, smoother, or without layout issues) than on other browsers. All browsers, even IE8, can do some of the stuff there, but all other browsers have issues with some parts.

That's not to say IE9 doesn't still have issues with soem things that other browsers do fine, because it does. For example, I don't think it has WebSockets. However, it's still not only a huge step up from earlier versions, it's also better than its competitors in many areas.

Oh, so because I know something you don't.. i'm a "know it all". That's the excuse of the arrogant when they are caught out on their ignorance.

You can, in fact, turn ansi compatibility on and off, and not just in Microsoft C++, but borland, and gcc as well (I still refer to the compiler borland made as borland rather than whatever company owns it this week). gcc has various extension modes that make it non-ansi compatible if you enable or disable them as well.

In vc++ 6, there is a switch call /Za that turns off Microsoft extensions, making the compiler (significantly more ansi compliant, including things like for loop, which you claim wasn't there).

Read this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa270923(v=VS.60).aspx

While it doesn't explicityly mention the for loop scope, it's covered under more general scop rules in the scope section.

You don't need a glyph for "=>" for instance. Anyone who knows what = and > mean individually can discern the meaning.

"=>" is not the same thing as ">=". In C#, for example, "=>" is the lambda operator.

Technet subscriptions are only for "evaluation and testing"... If you are using such software in production then you are breaking the terms of the license.

Plus the GP assumes all geeks just buy in packets of 3 and 10 when adding a single new PC to our living rooms. He's also assuming we'll pay the min $200 USD to save less than that same $200 dollars for the one PC we're building per year. He is also assuming that we all have fat pipes to download the 4GB DVD's, and that we don't prefer shrinkwrapped proof in case MS activation ever acts up. MS only gives you boxes in the 3-times-costlier tier of pro subscriptions.

But we'll bite. Just have our IT boss foot that personal use bill... oh, wait.

That depends on your definition of secure. IE 8 runs in a low privileged Protected Mode by default. This results in the browser running at a privileged level that is much lower than the user who launched it and is quite effective at preventing certain attacks from working.

Last I checked, Apple still hasn't added support for low privileged/low integrity mode in Safari, which means the Safari binary has all of the privileges of the user who launched it.

Apples and oranges, to some degree. In Windows you still generally have to run as an administrator for many things to work - so you really, REALLY want your browser to run at a lower privilege level than administrator!

On the Mac, things work just fine running from a non-admin account.

The big problem with my statement, of course, is that the default install does set up a single user as an administrator on the Mac - so unless the user takes that one extra step to separate the admin account from his day-to-day account, your point is a valid one. But on the Mac there's no significant downside to running the day-to-day stuff from a non-privileged account, unlike in Windows.

Some of us actually grew up playing Adventure (still playable online today -- wow!) on something that looks suspiciously similar to that! In my case, a LA36 DECWriter II, which apparently came standard with hippie dress, porn mustache and butterfly collar. I think I still have the old 300 baud acoustic coupler modem lying around somewhere.

    I'm pretty sure it was more like a tasteless odorless chunk of chum was thrown into the ocean, and there was no reaction. There was no interest at all.

    More importantly, it hasn't even been released yet. It is available as a beta, but you have to implicitly install it.

    First, go to Google, and search for msie 9

    The first link takes you the Internet Explorer 9 Test Drive

    Which the download button doesn't download, but takes you to the Explorer9Beta page

    (Does Ford know that they've hijacked the "Explorer" name?)

    The download button does actually download.

    And no, I'm not a fanboy. I was just curious. Don't ask about performance though, all I got to was the download page. I didn't actually install it. :)

    I'm pretty sure it was more like a tasteless odorless chunk of chum was thrown into the ocean, and there was no reaction. There was no interest at all.

    More importantly, it hasn't even been released yet. It is available as a beta, but you have to implicitly install it.

    First, go to Google, and search for msie 9

    The first link takes you the Internet Explorer 9 Test Drive

    Which the download button doesn't download, but takes you to the Explorer9Beta page

    (Does Ford know that they've hijacked the "Explorer" name?)

    The download button does actually download.

    And no, I'm not a fanboy. I was just curious. Don't ask about performance though, all I got to was the download page. I didn't actually install it. :)

And yet just last week, a friend told me he couldn't make a filing with the Georgia Department of Revenue because "his browser was insecure." Nevermind that he was using the latest version of Safari, which is likely more secure than any version of IE.

That depends on your definition of secure. IE 8 runs in a low privileged Protected Mode by default. This results in the browser running at a privileged level that is much lower than the user who launched it and is quite effective at preventing certain attacks from working.

Last I checked, Apple still hasn't added support for low privileged/low integrity mode in Safari, which means the Safari binary has all of the privileges of the user who launched it.

If you tell Internet Explorer 8 to run a web site in compatibility view, it will work just as it did in Internet Explorer 6. This is just an example of people being too fucking lazy and taking the easy way out.

An example on how to do this is here .

If a prepackaged, working solution currently existed to virtualize IE6 and solve all these problems with just the receipt of a licensing fee, this would not be a story.

Even better, virtualize the entire OS it runs on since IE6 is such a security hole.

We could call the feature Windows XP Mode and include it with the Professional and Enterprise versions of Windows.

Oh wait, Microsoft already did that.

Works great.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx

"Microsoft Sues Motorola Over Android Patent Infringement" "Microsoft says Motorola is violating nine patents "that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."

So this has nothing to do with Linux. Those are features of Android. And, from some other patent agreements, the "synchronizing mail" thing applies only to synchronizing with Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.

All ASUS has to do is remove Microsoft Outlook and Exchange compatibility from their version of Android. Encourage users to use Google's "cloud" apps instead. Or ordinary IMAP. Microsoft will love that.

BS it didn't happen. They're already doing it to HTC, they have a history of doing it in the past (see TomTom, Amazon, etc.), and they even have a list of shakedowns published, if a citation is needed. Sure, not all of those are proper shakedowns, but most of them are.

"MDDS itself is not for booking." - by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday October 27, @12:21PM (#34038760)

You can use your "interpretations" of what the case study said, but I will use the EXACT documentation that states otherwise from MS, that's more specific and supports my case that MDDS does do trade booking... See below, answer my question!

ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNKNOWING FOOL:

What does that say below, between the dashed lines, UnknowingFool? Especially BOTH the BOLDED parts below, both of them...

---

NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries:

(PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT)

"Agility to Meet Customer Needs

"Moving trade booking operations from the large mainframe database to SQL Server 2005 has greatly enhanced the agility NASDAQ internal developers enjoy when customizing existing or creating new solutions."

---

(So - What's that say then, UnknowingFool? Does that state that NASDAQ is using MDDS for booking of trades as well? Sure does! You said it doesn't but... there you are!)

Straight from the very article in my PS below, from MS no less, verbatim... lol, & you said I didn't read it?

Please - As usual from you, if it's not LIES or your mistakes or your OWN PERSONAL "interpretations"? It's now you being "the Pot calling the kettle black" boy, on YOUR part... lmao! The LITERAL statement above came from my legit sources @ MS below in fact... you lose boy, you lose.

APK

P.S.=> MY SOURCE USED? Well: LMAO, the very article YOU SAID I DID NOT READ, no less - see below &... how ironic!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eanVbbWTsmEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%2520-%2520SQL%2520Server%25202005%252012.18.06_Final.doc+MDDS+and+booking+of+trade&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

or

http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%20-%20SQL%20Server%202005%2012.18.06_Final.doc

apk

ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNKNOWING FOOL:

What does that say below, between the dashed lines, UnknowingFool? Especially BOTH the BOLDED parts below, both of them...

---

NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries:

(PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT)

"Agility to Meet Customer Needs

"Moving trade booking operations from the large mainframe database to SQL Server 2005 has greatly enhanced the agility NASDAQ internal developers enjoy when customizing existing or creating new solutions."

---

(So - What's that say then, UnknowingFool? Does that state that NASDAQ is using MDDS for booking of trades as well? Sure does! You said it doesn't but... there you are!)

Straight from the very article in my PS below, from MS no less, verbatim... lol, & you said I didn't read it?

Please - As usual from you, if it's not LIES or your mistakes? It's now you being "the Pot calling the kettle black" boy, on YOUR part... lmao!

APK

P.S.=> MY SOURCE USED? Well: LMAO, the very article YOU SAID I DID NOT READ, no less - see below &... how ironic!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eanVbbWTsmEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%2520-%2520SQL%2520Server%25202005%252012.18.06_Final.doc+MDDS+and+booking+of+trade&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

or

http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%20-%20SQL%20Server%202005%2012.18.06_Final.doc

apk

Apparently in completely unrelated news, Asus is deprecating Windows Phone 7. This even though Google totally cleaned Garmin's clock on the free navi thing.

As always, Garmin-Asus seeks the best for our consumers either on Android platform or on Windows platform. However, we see the potential of Android platform devices, so we are focusing on Android platform currently. - Steven Tu

Meanwhile Microsoft's VP, Corporate Communications Frank X. Shaw is over on Twitter right now trying to repair the damage done by today's CNN Money report. In case y'all want to wander over and lend him a hand.

StartCom offers free x.509 certificates

But you still need an IPv4 address to use a certificate until SNI-incapable clients disappear in three and a half more years. Once ARIN runs out of blocks to hand out to regional registries, which in turn run out of blocks to hand out to hosting providers' ISPs, watch hosting providers charge plenty extra for a hosting tier that supports SSL.

This "Coward" just KICKED YOUR ASS:

"Trade Dissemination == Reporting. Trade processing == Booking. Again you don't seem to grasp definitions very well. Read the MS case study again. It talks all about reporting and how MDDS would "help" booking. It doesn't mention that it would process the trade at all. - by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday October 27, @12:24PM (#34038796)

ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNKNOWING FOOL:

What does that say below, UnknowingFool? Especially BOTH the BOLDED parts...

NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries:

(PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT)

"Agility to Meet Customer Needs

"Moving trade booking operations from the large mainframe database to SQL Server 2005 has greatly enhanced the agility NASDAQ internal developers enjoy when customizing existing or creating new solutions."

Straight from that very article no less, verbatim... lol, & you said I didn't read it? Pot calling the kettle black boy, on YOUR part... lmao!

---

MDDS appears to be far more than the London Stock Exchange's InfoLect system, which was only apparently a "trade data dissemination" system ONLY, whereas MDDS? Read the above... NASDAQ moved from Tandem Mainframes (used to be Compaq, & now is HP).

The NASDAQ overall system is a composite of proprietary & commodity systems (MS stuff is noted above) & it's called "SuperMontage" (makes sense, a montage is a sort of collage). I never ONCE said it was "ALL MS" stuff, though YOU tried to stuff those words in my mouth and YOU KNOW IT (and you were unable to produce me EVER saying that also).

The same deal is probably prevalent at most all stock exchanges really I'd wager (a mixture of tools).

Oh, & again - There IS the fact that NASDAQ manages to keep a Microsoft-based system going and LSE?? FAILED... this only again supports my 2nd posting that teams that architect, code, and maintain systems like these matter MORE than the OS or DB's used apparently, look at the results here in comparison of NASDAQ & LSE!

I ought to know by the way - this IS what I have been doing professionally for 16++ yrs. now in fact, writing or co-writing, & maintaining "Mission-Critical/Enterprise-Class" information systems... apk

So, in the end here? Well - It appears you LOSE on all fronts, even your "last stand" here, boy... eat your words!

(Your big mouth got you FRIED... and as per usual here on /., vs. the little "know it all wannabe trolls" around here? Ah, just "too, Too, TOO EASY" (just too easy)).

APK

P.S.=> MY SOURCE USED: LMAO, the very article YOU SAID I DID NOT READ, no less... how ironic!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eanVbbWTsmEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%2520-%2520SQL%2520Server%25202005%252012.18.06_Final.doc+MDDS+and+booking+of+trade&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us\

or

http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%20-%20SQL%20Server%202005%2012.18.06_Final.doc.

"Trade Dissemination == Reporting. Trade processing == Booking. Again you don't seem to grasp definitions very well. Read the MS case study again. It talks all about reporting and how MDDS would "help" booking. It doesn't mention that it would process the trade at all. - by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday October 27, @12:24PM (#34038796)

ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNKNOWING FOOL:

What does that say below, UnknowingFool? Especially BOTH the BOLDED parts...

NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries:

(PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT)

"Agility to Meet Customer Needs

"Moving trade booking operations from the large mainframe database to SQL Server 2005 has greatly enhanced the agility NASDAQ internal developers enjoy when customizing existing or creating new solutions."

Straight from that very article no less, verbatim... lol, & you said I didn't read it? Pot calling the kettle black boy, on YOUR part... lmao!

---

MDDS appears to be far more than the London Stock Exchange's InfoLect system, which was only apparently a "trade data dissemination" system ONLY, whereas MDDS? Read the above... NASDAQ moved from Tandem Mainframes (used to be Compaq, & now is HP).

The NASDAQ overall system is a composite of proprietary & commodity systems (MS stuff is noted above) & it's called "SuperMontage" (makes sense, a montage is a sort of collage). I never ONCE said it was "ALL MS" stuff, though YOU tried to stuff those words in my mouth and YOU KNOW IT (and you were unable to produce me EVER saying that also).

The same deal is probably prevalent at most all stock exchanges really I'd wager (a mixture of tools).

Oh, & again - There IS the fact that NASDAQ manages to keep a Microsoft-based system going and LSE?? FAILED... this only again supports my 2nd posting that teams that architect, code, and maintain systems like these matter MORE than the OS or DB's used apparently, look at the results here in comparison of NASDAQ & LSE!

I ought to know by the way - this IS what I have been doing professionally for 16++ yrs. now in fact, writing or co-writing, & maintaining "Mission-Critical/Enterprise-Class" information systems... apk

So, in the end here? Well - It appears you LOSE on all fronts, even your "last stand" here, boy... eat your words!

APK

P.S.=> MY SOURCE USED: LMAO, the very article YOU SAID I DID NOT READ, no less... how ironic!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eanVbbWTsmEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%2520-%2520SQL%2520Server%25202005%252012.18.06_Final.doc+MDDS+and+booking+of+trade&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us\

or

http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/a/d/cadc2f8c-3901-4b40-9429-fd071ba6c9bd/NASDAQ%20-%20SQL%20Server%202005%2012.18.06_Final.doc.

So they should do something like - http://www.microsoft.com/cloud ?

P.S.=> I am going to let YOU continue to embarass yourself, and watch you eat your words (and so will everyone else here reading), because you shot your mouth off both times above and I had reliable sources disproving you at every turn and you called me NAMES? WELL, time to watch you squirm is all, unless you can prove me wrong... apk

That's a lot of talk from someone who hides behind an anonymous handle. If you read the MS case study in detail (which you didn't), you would see that it says: "MDDS receives direct feeds from NASDAQ's trade reporting system, and collects the data, storing it in SQL Server 2005. It is then available in real time for queries by market participants, including those using the NASDAQ Workstation, a Web-based tool that connects to NASDAQ trading systems. " MDDS "connects to" the trading and the reporting system? But isn't MDDS the trading system? That's a logic problem there.

Like many case studies, MS trumps up what it did. Every company does it; Oracle installing a small DB at company might issue a press release how said company is installing Oracle into "vital systems." Yes the MDDS system "supports" the booking system. Traders large and small rely on the information that MDDS provides; however, MDDS is not the trading system itself.

If you read carefully, logic would lead anyone to that conclusion that MDDS is not the trading system. 100,000 queries a day is nowhere near adequate volume for NASDAQ. It is however, adequate for a reporting system. A you never addressed this point. How can a 100,000 a day system handle the sheer volume of NASDAQ? NASDAQ reportedaverage daily share volume of 311 million for February 2005. Average Daily Volume of 311,000,000 / 6.5 hours / 60 minutes per hour/ 60 seconds per minute = 13,290 trades per second. How can a system that handles 100,000 queries a day handle that? NASDAQ would only be able to function for 10 seconds a day. Logic and math would lead that it can't. If I were you, I'd read more carefully as you seem to read just the headlines but no details. I'd also do more research from other sources: Google seems to confirm what you refuse to admit that NASDAQ's trading system does run on Linux. Like many other companies, NASDAQ runs multiple applications on multiple platforms.

"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries"

"support"!="process" Samba "supports" Windows networks. Samba != Windows. MDDS helps traders in that they can gather information about trades, companies, prices, histories. In that way they support booking, but MDDS itself is not for booking. If you read the case study, the biggest clue is that MDDS could only handle 100,000 queries a day. The NASDAQ prides itself that it can handle 64,000 transactions per second. A point you have never addressed. If MDDS was used for booking, it is painfully inadequate. All you've shown is that you don't understand details.

Visual Studio Express is free.

Team Foundation Server is not a requirement for .Net programming. You can use any revision control system you want.

Biz Talk Server isn't directly for .Net development, but rather communication.

SQL Server Express is free.

Next time, troll harder please.