Slashdot Mirror

(PS - thanks for this thread - it answers a question my wife posed - why her windows machine rebooted overnight when she was in the middle of sorting digital photos to send to be printed, and there was no power outage.)

I don't know which books you've been reading, but Microsoft has had a logo program for Windows NT as long as it has been shipping that requires the multiuser design to be followed. I have an old .hlp file describing the Win32 API circa 1995 and it describes proper multiuser application design on Windows.

As for the registry and copying user settings: first, if you want to copy a user's profile to another computer, why not just copy the entire profile? Just copy the directory over, resetting permissions if necessary. That's what I'd do for a unix profile.

Second, OE has a fairly modular design (*gasp*). It uses MAPI (which itself is several pieces) for user identity, mailbox and storage, and it uses the user certificate store for user passwords and certificates. I know that the standard practice on unixes is to re-invent the wheel for each of those functions per mail client, but Microsoft decided create and document separate components. You have to make sure that the settings and data for each of these components, plus OE's own settings are copied. It's easier to either export the user's state (I do believe OE has a function for that), or just copy the entire user profile around.

There are a lot of advantages to breaking up a program into smaller pieces, but keeping track of all those parts (which tend to get spread out all over), is a major disadvantage. Just look at how complex the package management systems and package hierarchies of a major Linux distribution are.

BTW, I'm running Office 97 on WS2003 without issue as a limited user. Back in the day with the likes of NT3.51 and NT4.0, Office 97 was one of the best multiuser apps, even including special user workgrouping functions. I don't see why Vista would be any different.

I don't know which books you've been reading, but Microsoft has had a logo program for Windows NT as long as it has been shipping that requires the multiuser design to be followed. I have an old .hlp file describing the Win32 API circa 1995 and it describes proper multiuser application design on Windows.

As for the registry and copying user settings: first, if you want to copy a user's profile to another computer, why not just copy the entire profile? Just copy the directory over, resetting permissions if necessary. That's what I'd do for a unix profile.

Second, OE has a fairly modular design (*gasp*). It uses MAPI (which itself is several pieces) for user identity, mailbox and storage, and it uses the user certificate store for user passwords and certificates. I know that the standard practice on unixes is to re-invent the wheel for each of those functions per mail client, but Microsoft decided create and document separate components. You have to make sure that the settings and data for each of these components, plus OE's own settings are copied. It's easier to either export the user's state (I do believe OE has a function for that), or just copy the entire user profile around.

There are a lot of advantages to breaking up a program into smaller pieces, but keeping track of all those parts (which tend to get spread out all over), is a major disadvantage. Just look at how complex the package management systems and package hierarchies of a major Linux distribution are.

BTW, I'm running Office 97 on WS2003 without issue as a limited user. Back in the day with the likes of NT3.51 and NT4.0, Office 97 was one of the best multiuser apps, even including special user workgrouping functions. I don't see why Vista would be any different.

Whatever excuses have been given for FFXI abruptly closing when losing focus, it's ultimately inexcusable. It's one of (many) reasons I quit playing. I want to be able to receive email and IMs while running the game, and Square-Enix's refusal to allow it helped convince me to quit. (One reason out of many, but I don't need to get into that.)

The problem with the "prevent scripting/botting" claim is that it's simply unsupportable. It's obviously flawed in that it never worked - there have been bots playing FFXI since I started playing, and according to reports of Square-Enix continuing to ban players, have been since I stopped.

It never worked. It never could. The best it could hope to do was prevent direct interaction with other programs.

My best guess is that they were hoping that they would somehow prevent people from running debuggers against FFXI by hindering the ability to interact with another program while FFXI was running. That would never work, though, since developers obviously must have solutions in order to debug the code themselves. The simple answer is simply to run the debugger on the computer running the fullscreen program but run the UI on a separate computer, communicating over a network. Microsoft's Visual Studio calls this remote debugging and it's not exactly a new concept.

As nice as the "prevent botting" excuse may sound it simply doesn't hold any water.

First off, I agree with the article's assessment that it is the developer's fault why UAC is required in the first part. Now, I know this is slashdot, and Micro$oft bashing is everyone's favorite past time here, but, I'm going to defend them for a moment. The reason why I say it's the developers fault is because for YEARS Microsoft has been publishing information on how application's should function to work in as "Limited Users" (aka non-Administrators), at least since the days of Windows 2000. Now, the problem is, most developers I know have never even heard of this! What is this magical mystical document I speak of? Well, it's the Microsoft Logo specifications, aka "Designed for Windows". This talks about all kinds of useful things including separation of user data from application resources; which from my experience is the primary reason why USER applications do not function as non-Administrators.

Now, I also know that Microsoft themselves haven't followed their own rules, and some applications still require administrative rights (and some stupid design decisions such as IE's Code Store Database). Combine that with the fact that they have to support an existing installation base of applications that don't follow those practices and what else can they do? Ever tell have to tell a business user that they can't use their mission critical application anymore because it doesn't work with a proper security implementation? How about telling a Grandparent that have to go buy a new version of some application that they've been using for 10 years because it doesn't work on their new PC? UAC is Microsoft's bridge to go from the old way of everyone running as Admins to the way everyone else has been saying to run, as a "Limited User". It's either that or the proliferation of the fallacy that on Windows you must run as Root.

So, UAC sucks, but can anyone actually recommend a better solution that will work for the install base Windows has? I'm not talking about the "Windows has more users than Unix/Linux/Mac", I'm say that Windows user's and developers are DUMBER than Unix/Linux/Mac users/developers. Now, don't get me wrong, there are extemes on both sides of the fence, but if we looked at percentages, the percentage of dumb users and developers on the Windows side will probably far outweigh those on the other platforms. (Queue the "well switch stupid" comments. And I will, once the industry does as well, it's all about critical mass people.)

Here's some more information on the Vista Logo requirements:
http://microsoft.mrmpslc.com/InnovateOnWindowsVist a/getstartedcert.aspx?LangType=4105

Here's the "Requirements for the Windows Vista Logo Program for Software document":
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/e/4/8e4c9 29d-679a-4238-8c21-2dcc8ed1f35c/Windows%20Vista%20 Software%20Logo%20Spec%201.1.doc

We compiled a list of the known issues with running VS 2005 RTM on Vista a while back. There's some interesting stuff in there that explains exactly what happens when you run VS on Vista with standard user privileges. Feel free to let me know if you want clarification on any of the issues raised in that doc.

Cheers,
Aaron

unless you want Windows to be constantly scanning e.g. the Program Files folder for changes... but something tells me, you wouldn't appreciate that ;-)

Windows supports a directory change notification; an application can request that the file system inform it when the contents of a directory change. (Linux and some Unices has this too, but in general it's not portable across versions of Unix or at all between Linux and Windows.)

At most you'd have to scan on first boot (and that's only necessary if you don't trust the file system to stay the same between boots), even if you take this approach and don't try to think of another way entirely to do it.

*Note that many of the problems associated with multiple users on a single WINDOWS system would be at least mitigated by introducing a "home" folder. This would have been an obvious feature to implement in Vista, but no such luck.

Um, what do you think that C:\Documents and Settings\[user name] is?

Do you mean this monstrosity?

(Which, I'll add, took a significant amount of searching on the MS website to find. A search for "vista eula" comes up with the XP eula and you have to do quite a bit of poking to actually find the above link... Said poking is left as an exercise to the reader.)

Or even easier, get a free copy from Microsoft

perhaps adding a .htaccess rulz to redirect those requests to http://www.microsoft.com/ could satify your need to get back at MS for inventing that stupid feature... (bonus points if you link it to a huge image).

Only 1 of the 6 bugs that affected Vista was rated "critical". (Critical is typically reserved for bugs that could allow somebody to remotely take over the machine.)

In the case of the one bug that was rated critical, the rating was dependent on several mitigating factors, including that the user running as full admin with UAC turned off. (Obviously not the default configuration.)

Only in that scenario could the machine be compromised, and even then the successful execution of exploit code was unlikely thanks to ASLR and various other security measures. It was far more likely to simply cause a browser crash.

Considering Vista has been out since November of last year, its security record so far as been extremely impressive.

Here's Microsoft's support note for packet filtering in Windows 2000: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309798

Following Microsoft's instructions, please explain how to configure the firewall there described to block all TCP traffic except connections on port 1434 from network 192.168.0.0/16. You can't do it. You can block a particular port from operating at all on a particular interface but that's about it. Its... pathetic.

The XP firewall does more, but it still doesn't do the very obvious task: allow connections to port 1434 from these three corporate netblocks and nowhere else.

Further, it wasn't really a requirement in Windows until fairly recently (2000-ish), at which point the functionality was added.

And that's the whole point, isn't it? Security and the devices which support security do not become requirements in Windows until late in the game... like locking the proverbial barn door after the animals have all fled. In Linux and most of the other Unixes, the security devices tend to make it into the software BEFORE the widespread security events that compel their use.

It was in Linux because (for reasons I have never been able to fathom) lots of people like to use Linux machines as firewalls and routers (why they don't use the orders-of-magnitude nicer FreeBSD+ipfw or ipfilter, or OpenBSD+ipfilter or pf, is beyond me).

Like perhaps "Internet Connection Sharing" in Windows? And hey, what do you know, Windows can work as a plain router too. It even supports RIP and OSPF natively. What it lacks is any of the tools necessary to make that work securely.

As for IPF on BSD, you're welcome to it. Its a very capable firewall. Astonishingly so compare to XP's junk. I prefer netfilter on Linux. It offers essentially the same capability and effeciency as ipfilter and I'm familiar with it. I don't know which one added groups or transparent proxies first but they both have it now. And Windows still doesn't.

If a program crashes, it asks you if you want to send an error report to Microsoft. Press 'send' to send one. If it's a known problem, it'll tell you.

If you're beta-testing Windows, a quick Google gives http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/sentiments/d efault.mspx as a feedback form. I imagine other beta products have their own feedback ways (e.g. Office 2007 had Send a Smile / Send a Frown).

Otherwise... it seems to vary from product to product. Windows Home Server has a dedicated suggestion forum; and pretty much every product has a developer blog.

If that's not direct enough, I can personally recommend another OS with more direct feedback methods...

If a program crashes, it asks you if you want to send an error report to Microsoft. Press 'send' to send one. If it's a known problem, it'll tell you.

If you're beta-testing Windows, a quick Google gives http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/sentiments/d efault.mspx as a feedback form. I imagine other beta products have their own feedback ways (e.g. Office 2007 had Send a Smile / Send a Frown).

Otherwise... it seems to vary from product to product. Windows Home Server has a dedicated suggestion forum; and pretty much every product has a developer blog.

If that's not direct enough, I can personally recommend another OS with more direct feedback methods...

I call FUD
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/default .mspx#E6
I make that 700USD for a 5 user small op.
The BIG one has TWO astrixes next to it; I.E. call lets talk

Honest to fucking GOD, you post a "quote" from some "Bloke" you met in a bar, half remembered and never followed it up with a 1 second search on google, your a fucking moron

is it based on a Windows programming model or a UNIX one?

What it advertises is the problem. The idea that code can be trusted based on some heuristic based on the apparent origin of the code is a dismal failure, and has led to more security problems than every other bad idea in Windows put together. It has no place in UNIX.

That doesn't seem to be the case based on my reading of the API. If it happens to work in UNIX (and it probably does, because of course a socket end point IS a file handle) that doesn't mean it will work in Windows where sockets and file handles have separate APIs.

If it, or its descendants, are used by real Silverlight applications in the wold, then it will have to be implemented, whether it's in BCF or not (and I've found conflicting statements about THAT).

Anyway, I wasn't arguing for Silverlight specifically so much as I was for CLR as a platform, and C# as a language, in general. Even if we limit ourselves to the things covered by the ISO standards, rather than all the stuff already implemented in Mono, it's still more than what ISO C++ has to offer; all open, all free, all standardized. I still don't see any reason to miss on that part of it, at least.

is it based on a Windows programming model or a UNIX one?

What it advertises is the problem. The idea that code can be trusted based on some heuristic based on the apparent origin of the code is a dismal failure, and has led to more security problems than every other bad idea in Windows put together. It has no place in UNIX.

That doesn't seem to be the case based on my reading of the API. If it happens to work in UNIX (and it probably does, because of course a socket end point IS a file handle) that doesn't mean it will work in Windows where sockets and file handles have separate APIs.

If it, or its descendants, are used by real Silverlight applications in the wold, then it will have to be implemented, whether it's in BCF or not (and I've found conflicting statements about THAT).

Anyway, I wasn't arguing for Silverlight specifically so much as I was for CLR as a platform, and C# as a language, in general. Even if we limit ourselves to the things covered by the ISO standards, rather than all the stuff already implemented in Mono, it's still more than what ISO C++ has to offer; all open, all free, all standardized. I still don't see any reason to miss on that part of it, at least.

is it based on a Windows programming model or a UNIX one?

What it advertises is the problem. The idea that code can be trusted based on some heuristic based on the apparent origin of the code is a dismal failure, and has led to more security problems than every other bad idea in Windows put together. It has no place in UNIX.

That doesn't seem to be the case based on my reading of the API. If it happens to work in UNIX (and it probably does, because of course a socket end point IS a file handle) that doesn't mean it will work in Windows where sockets and file handles have separate APIs.

If it, or its descendants, are used by real Silverlight applications in the wold, then it will have to be implemented, whether it's in BCF or not (and I've found conflicting statements about THAT).

Anyway, I wasn't arguing for Silverlight specifically so much as I was for CLR as a platform, and C# as a language, in general. Even if we limit ourselves to the things covered by the ISO standards, rather than all the stuff already implemented in Mono, it's still more than what ISO C++ has to offer; all open, all free, all standardized. I still don't see any reason to miss on that part of it, at least.

is it based on a Windows programming model or a UNIX one?

What it advertises is the problem. The idea that code can be trusted based on some heuristic based on the apparent origin of the code is a dismal failure, and has led to more security problems than every other bad idea in Windows put together. It has no place in UNIX.

That doesn't seem to be the case based on my reading of the API. If it happens to work in UNIX (and it probably does, because of course a socket end point IS a file handle) that doesn't mean it will work in Windows where sockets and file handles have separate APIs.

If it, or its descendants, are used by real Silverlight applications in the wold, then it will have to be implemented, whether it's in BCF or not (and I've found conflicting statements about THAT).

Anyway, I wasn't arguing for Silverlight specifically so much as I was for CLR as a platform, and C# as a language, in general. Even if we limit ourselves to the things covered by the ISO standards, rather than all the stuff already implemented in Mono, it's still more than what ISO C++ has to offer; all open, all free, all standardized. I still don't see any reason to miss on that part of it, at least.

You mean this?

This is the same group which wants to give multiple mouse to one PC. The dumbest idea to experiment with children of developing countries. Why cant the children have cheaper individual PC's.

Ok, now this time try looking things up :)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop .mspx

HINT: 1993: Windows NT 3.1, paragraph 2

SteveB is the CEO and Bill Gates is now Chairman. He used to be the Chief Software Architect as well but was recently replaced by Ray Ozzie.

SteveB is the CEO and Bill Gates is now Chairman. He used to be the Chief Software Architect as well but was recently replaced by Ray Ozzie.

SteveB is the CEO and Bill Gates is now Chairman. He used to be the Chief Software Architect as well but was recently replaced by Ray Ozzie.

I said "yum install somepackage", I didn't say "yum find-and-then-ask-me-if-I-really-want-to-install somepackage".

I wanted to watch the GOP debate, but my Linux (Gentoo/GNOME) box would not load video from the MSNBC page. I was told that I needed Firefox (which I had) and Flash (which I had). I tried in OS X with Firefox and Flash. No dice. I tried with Safari (which it said would work) and Flash on my Mac. Same message.

I used the latest version of Firefox, Safari, OS X, and the Flash plugin on both machines. STILL was unable to watch on Microsoft's site. On OS X I also had the Microsoft WMV Quicktime plugins.

Just a quick poll-- has anyone ever had video working on MSNBC with a non-Windows machine? If so, what was your configuration?

W

There is some merit to what Siracusa is saying, at least on gaming and multimedia fronts.

Windows was a hamstrung peformer for graphics until NT 4.0 saw rearchitecture which placed key portions of the OS (including 3rd-party graphics drivers) at a much lower level.

That particular printer was a DeskJet 5600 series. Don't remember the specific model number, but HP drivers and software tends to be common across models in a series (e.g., 5650 and 5652 would use identical drivers). I believe that one of the 5600 series printers has a flash card reader for printing digital photos directly. This one didn't, but the HP software install loaded all that Imaging Center and Share-to-Web cruft anyway.

The Microsoft KB article that came out later that week mentioned that systems with HP scanners, digital cameras, and printers were affected. I think that this particular buggy shell extension added a "Share-to-Web" or "Open with HP Imaging Center" entry to a context menu.

k.

An anonymous call to these guys should do the trick!

... when looking around the Microsoft Vista site for information about a future UMPC purchase, I stumbled across the Origami Experience Pack ( WGA validation required before downloading )

It's available for download now, and contains three programs aimed at UMPC use on Vista. It comes with a Sudoku game (?), a "designed for UMPC" shell for movies, music, pictures and programs, and apparently some improved touch-screen functionality. Would be interested to hear feedback from those with UMPC's using this on Vista.

PowerShell is a free download.
It's available for 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista, XP, Windows Server 2k3, and Longhorn Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technol ogies/management/powershell/download.mspx

(There's old text at that link saying that the Vista version is at RC2, but it's actually RTM.)

Click here to turn in your employer. Select the button that says "I am reporting an organization using pirated software on its own computers. (You may be eligible for a reward.)". Or call, toll-free, 1-888 NO PIRACY. Operators are waiting to take your call.

There's even a PowerPoint presentation which explains all this, titled "Don't Play Roulette With Your Business" (And it plays fine in OpenOffice Impress.)

Also, print out this Microsoft article about "reduced functionality mode", which is where your pirated version of Microsoft Office will probably end up after a while, unable to create new documents.

Seems a lot like the static methods provided by the Debugger class in .net System.Diagnostics namespace:

System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break() - Signals a breakpoint to the attached debugger.
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached - bool, obvious
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Launch() - Pops up the windows start JIT debugging box

System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsLogging - bool, obvious
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Log(int level, string category, string message)

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.di agnostics.debugger_members.aspx

Mm. Interesting.

Well, I'll give the satisfaction hardly anyone ever gives me and say I was wrong about something critical; last I looked, not so long ago, Novell had not yet done their devil's bargain with Microsoft, and while the Mono guys were hard at work cloning the .NET APIs, it was a reverse engineering effort, they were not done, and there was every indication that Microsoft would sue the crap out of them once they finished... though they might choose to wait a little while after, till more people were using Mono, and sue them all, just to make a point.

And there were lines of reasoning like this.

It seems now Mono and Novell are good friends with Microsoft, and MS is opening up the platform more after all. At least to them.

This changes my whole perspective on the thing.

With a few caveats, that is:

You're still dodging the issue of which language is bigger - they compared posted jobs on craigslist, c# is not really placing as well as perl, simple as that. Divide and multiply the job posting numbers by other things to your hearts' content, if it makes you feel better. That said, if .NET is truly going to be open, it has a future, so the trend will be better for it.

I think you answering "Never said I wanted to" about leaving Microsoft is hilarious - if you ever get in bed with a vendor and find you can't get out, you will learn why having the option matters soon enough.

Microsoft's .NET is not free - unless you steal Windows Server, that is. :)

I never said .NET was a language. Try and quote where I did.

All this said, if I can go to Mono and get a GPL .NET implementation, then I might use it. And that certainly would be free. It's not caught up with Microsoft now, but say they stay on schedule, and/or MS helps them, I suppose they could.

Java has been encouraging others to make totally compatible JREs and JDKs since the beginning. There have been GPL ones from early on - Sun encouraged it, unlike Microsoft, who I don't think were so encouraging of Mono at first. So it's hardly lock in, is it. :) Also, the source was open for most of the time - just not under a free software license. :) But now even Sun uses the GPL.

The interesting thing will be: will Microsoft really allow Mono to be a free replacement for their platform? And will the free alternative really be adopted in production, in major enterprises?

Will it really be possible/practical to migrate a .NET app from Windows to Linux, actually creating competition? Maybe not... after all, while Pure Java is a credo everyone knows, MS encourages users to interop with native code, making things non-portable. Time will tell. But I'll be very surprised if Microsoft makes it so easy to escape their platform.

But at home everything is paid for?

Don't think management uses every dirty business trick they know?

If the software makers thought they needed all the extra revenue they would make it so much harder to run pirated copies wouldn't they?

No, they aren't.
yes, they, are
from tiobe: The ratings are based on the world-wide availability of skilled engineers, courses and third party vendors. The popular search engines Google, MSN, and Yahoo! are used to calculate the ratings. Observe that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language or the language in which most lines of code have been written.

dedasys also uses web stats, along with projects in freashmeat, well that is a language bias right there, why not include codeproject or sourceforge? Also in the normalized chart he doesn't include the jobs/1000's of google hits where c# dominates java. From dedasys: C# looks to be an up-and-comer in the corporate world, with lots of jobs posted, but not as much traction on the web. One might speculate that, since it's the future for the Microsoft platform, companies are requiring it as a skill for new hires. Metrics are a tricky thing, they only tell so much, it is very easy to get an incorrect bias in any direction.

Yeah, the new version had great new features for a low low price. But customers don't always want to be on a treadmill. Most just want their apps to work.
Every language progresses and in the process drops and adds features (deprecation). The Runtime Callable wrapper allows legacy code to run with no code changes. This makes them just work. It also allows for time to re-factor/update code into .Net an assembly at a time if so desired.

I can always tell when people have maintained a large codebase and when they haven't.
Oh really? Awfully pretentious of you to think so.

C# != .NET.
I never said that, and I'm not sure where you are getting the assumption that I think as much. I said .Net is a set of technologies, not least of which includes the language. You said .Net is a language which is a fallacy. .Net supports many languages, too many to list. Notice the critical missing piece?

What do you think happens when you want to leave Microsoft?
Never said I wanted to

What do you think MS does when they've got you locked in? What they always do. What any vendor that gets you locked in does. They bend you over a barrel.
Like when Sun had complete control of java? It's only been since November 2006 that it was open sourced. So that's what like 12 years of lock-in. And you try to pawn yourself off as an open source proponent.

taking advantage of actual marketplaces full of innovation and competition...
Trying to claim that the .Net world has no innovation or competition, that's rich, thanks for the laugh.

That is the definition of openness - when you don't have to pay MS a cent to use .NET.
I'm glad we agree, because you don't have to pay them a cent. You can get the .Net frameworks (all 3) for free and all of the express editions of the programing languages are free along with SQL server express.

.NET has never been ported anywhere, and it never will.
(Go ahead, say that Mono will do it. I dare you.)
I don't need to, they already have. 1.1 is fully supported and 2.0 is well on the way. Your arguments are so full of holes it's not even funny. You have pie in the sky dreams for java and open source. Fine, I have no problems with that, I wish both the best of luck. But your analysis of .Net just being tired and dying at the moment is completely false. It may be dead someday, I really don't care. A language is a tool, a means to an end. I'll always use what best suits the job and not get caught up in language bigotry. It makes me more marketable and higher paid.

Try PDC which, IMHO, is more useful than TechEd for application developers using MSFT technology. It's going to be held early October this year in LA.

So those references you gave are just a compilation of web search hits based on language. This in no way reflects size of community or language activity. You would be dense to believe that these numbers reflect anything more than search criteria. I might as well take the number of books listed on Amazon for each language to see what is the most popular. It's all bullshit.

It sounds familiar because the VB guys said the same thing. Look what happened to them.

yes, what did happen to vb6? Well they upgraded the language to .Net and allowed .Net to call COM libraries seamlessly through the RCW. So you get a more powerful language and don't lose any of your old code/functionality. Boo Fucking Hoo.

Most languages we use widely today are truly open.

Newsflash: C# is open!

If Microsoft wanted to beat the crap out of Java all they'd need to do would be to put down the patent gun, open up their sources, and let .NET embrace cross platform. They could perhaps out-Java Java.
This I agree with

We both know very well they wont. It's because .NET is not designed to win the language wars or be the best language.
.Net is a set of technologies, not a language. You keep waxing intellectual about .Net, but yet, I keep having to correct you. And as for the open sourcing of .Net that is yet to be determined.

var node = document.createElement("input");
node.type = "radio"
node.name = ...
node.value = ...

That's what you would do if you follow the DOM standard. But sorry, this does not work. Try to create a radio button with the above code segment in Internet Explorer 6, you'll get a broken radio button - you can't select it. The correct way to create a radio button by DOM manipulation is described in this MSDN article:

newRadioButton = document.createElement("<INPUT TYPE='RADIO' NAME='RADIOTEST' VALUE='Second Choice'>")

Memory leaks
The last one was easy. Do you know you can make a web application that leaks memory like a sieve in Internet Explorer 6 by making a simple circular reference like the following one?

var node = document.createElement("div");
node.someAttr = node;

If you're a good programmer, I might have sounded an alarm in your head right now - any circular references involving DOM nodes in IE6 results in memory leaks that persist after URL changes or page refreshes - unless you use an AJAX toolkit that takes care of the issue for you. Have you assigned a DOM as an attribute value under another DOM node in the past? Yes? Then you'd better check your web application for memory leaks with Drip, now.

What's more, it's not just assigning DOM nodes as attributes that would result in memory leaks, closures in JavaScript can also form circular references and cause memory leaks. What makes closures particularly dangerous is that circular references with closures are not easy to spot. For example, the following code segment leaks:

var node = document.createElement("div");
var clickHandler = function(){};
node.onclick = clickHandler;

Looks innocent enough, but you've already formed a leaky circular reference here. node->clickHandler->node.

For more information about memory leaks under IE6, read these:
Mihai Bazon's blog entry
MSDN's lengthy and confusing description of the problem


The XMLHttpRequest object is not as simple as you think
Much of the magic of AJAX comes from the XMLHttpRequest object (or its ActiveX equivalent, or an iframe, etc.), right? Sure. If you're only doing something simple via AJAX (like, updating the server time), then you can just copy an XMLHttpRequest code snippet from sites like this and hack away, right?

var node = document.createElement("input");
node.type = "radio"
node.name = ...
node.value = ...

That's what you would do if you follow the DOM standard. But sorry, this does not work. Try to create a radio button with the above code segment in Internet Explorer 6, you'll get a broken radio button - you can't select it. The correct way to create a radio button by DOM manipulation is described in this MSDN article:

newRadioButton = document.createElement("<INPUT TYPE='RADIO' NAME='RADIOTEST' VALUE='Second Choice'>")

Memory leaks
The last one was easy. Do you know you can make a web application that leaks memory like a sieve in Internet Explorer 6 by making a simple circular reference like the following one?

var node = document.createElement("div");
node.someAttr = node;

If you're a good programmer, I might have sounded an alarm in your head right now - any circular references involving DOM nodes in IE6 results in memory leaks that persist after URL changes or page refreshes - unless you use an AJAX toolkit that takes care of the issue for you. Have you assigned a DOM as an attribute value under another DOM node in the past? Yes? Then you'd better check your web application for memory leaks with Drip, now.

What's more, it's not just assigning DOM nodes as attributes that would result in memory leaks, closures in JavaScript can also form circular references and cause memory leaks. What makes closures particularly dangerous is that circular references with closures are not easy to spot. For example, the following code segment leaks:

var node = document.createElement("div");
var clickHandler = function(){};
node.onclick = clickHandler;

Looks innocent enough, but you've already formed a leaky circular reference here. node->clickHandler->node.

For more information about memory leaks under IE6, read these:
Mihai Bazon's blog entry
MSDN's lengthy and confusing description of the problem


The XMLHttpRequest object is not as simple as you think
Much of the magic of AJAX comes from the XMLHttpRequest object (or its ActiveX equivalent, or an iframe, etc.), right? Sure. If you're only doing something simple via AJAX (like, updating the server time), then you can just copy an XMLHttpRequest code snippet from sites like this and hack away, right?

... but then a great book (PowerShell in Action) came along. Our in-box documentation has gotten much better as well but you pick up Bruce's book and give us a try again. I doubt you'll be disappointed. Jeffrey Snover [MSFT] Windows Management Partner Architect Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at: http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell Visit the Windows PowerShell ScriptCenter at: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/hubs /msh.mspx

these comments are wrong on all counts. I know most linux zealots are pretty incompetent when checking for documentation or how things work in Windows but at least just say you were too lazy rather than it is not possible or doesn't exist.

documentation is abundant on Microsoft scripting site including sample scripts that do what you claim was too hard to work out. (if you can't work out how to execute your old batches or set environment variables from even the basic info there then well I suggest you stay away from ALL shell based scripting as there is no hope for you.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/hubs /msh.mspx

You have no idea how much server-side GZipping futzes up AJAX and Flash apps in IE. Absolutely no idea.