Slashdot Mirror

...when companies "invent" some home brewn encryption

You do realize BitLocker isn't about some "home brewn" encryption algorithm right? It uses standard encryption algorithms (256 bit AES for example). The "invent" part here is how this standard encryption is used. From hardware, boot process, drive access, etc. Here is a good place to start for a basic overview.

offer $100,000 or so to anyone who can crack it

Didn't see that in the articles.

When noone does the company calls his product uncrackable. These events and claims are without credibility, security doesn't get manufactured this way.

True. If ANY company says ANY product is uncrackable, they are full of it and/or marketing is having too much of a say in thier message. However, again I'm not seeing any claims like that in any of the links. Am I missing something?

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old .Net v1 apps recompiled in .Net v2? You can't.

Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.

Want to support PC's that don't have .Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.

Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.

If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.

I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.

As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.

As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.

And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?

I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional

How tricky it is to self-define a lightweight XML format? Use whatever element you like, and design the data structure on your own that suits you best. Why do we need to design a new language?

How is it different from calling a server to output XML and output HTML/XHTML? Which modern browser today does not support XSLT? Firefox, Internet Explorer? (Yes, Opera will support XSLT 1.0 in the coming version 9)

BTW, There are server-side XSLT processors (for very-old browsers sake). For instance, this, this and this.

And finally, what's the point to make the document semantic if the browser ignores it?

The beast has 64MB which is not enough for any modern Linux KDE/Gnome system

Why? Are you planning on using this machine as your primary desktop? Are you going to try WoW on it?

Your 'average' Microsoft Windows 98 Desktop has as much ram as my Fedora Core 4 webserver, running blog and wiki, which doubles as my guild's teamspeak and CVS and Subversion server.

If you handed me that PC I would not see a Win98 desktop (suitable only for a young child's toy, IMHO.) I would see another webserver, firewall, IDS, samba domain controler (PDC or SDC,) mail server or low-end game server (Quake 3, Counterstrike, UT4K.)

The hard disc is too small (fixable, I have another unused one floating around)

Even the big, fat commercial distros fit in the 500 MB range with minimal install, no compiler tools and 1 or 2 full-blown server stacks. Heck, throwing 2-4 of my old IDE HDs in your old PC might not being the total space to 50GB, but that old PC would serve as a tftp, ftp, smbfs or nfs fileserver for 90% of the files I move.

Anther man's trash, as they say.

As for the Win98 license, I'd stick it into a VM image with qemu and grab all the patches I could before burning to CD. I do have apps that require Win98 to run, but they crashed the OS so badly that running in a Virtual Machine was needed just to get any work done anyway. You'd be surprised at how responsive Win98 in unaccelerated qemu is on an Amd 3000 with a 2.6 Linux kernel. Just don't network anything less than 98se unless you like reloading the image every 15 mintues or so.

The beast has 64MB which is not enough for any modern Linux KDE/Gnome system (my old Laptop has 96MB and is pretty turgid)

And you want to run a modern KDE/Gnome desktop on that why? That would be like running Half-Life 2 on the Win 98 box because Half-Life seemed to run okay. My current Linux laptop (IBM Thinkpad 380XD) has Xubuntu (was regular Ubuntu) with an xfce desktop. 96MB RAM and 2GB fs on a Pentuim 2 ain't zippy, but I can still run modern Gimp, modern ssh and modern firefox at the same time. When it had Windows ME, I'd have to close notepad to load http://updates.microsoft.com/ in IE.

Anyone who has a machine of that generation is going to leave it as it is. Linux is not an option.

If you are a geek or computer nerd or just looking to get into IT, dusting off an old PC or two can lead to making a nice basement test lab (as long as you overlook the heat, electric bill and the noise.) At the least, an afternoon with a beer and a network connection and you could have that old Win98 PC hosting the next Chip'n'Dips Site.

Netscape had a customization application that did exactly this back in the '90s, and Microsoft still does. This was how ISPs and such were easily able to distribute their own branded browsers to their customers.

The market for stuff like this is much smaller now that ISPs aren't mailing out software CDs to their users anymore. Coporate networks, maybe, but IE is already solidly entrenched here. Still, if it could be done without using too many resources, it might be a good idea for the Mozilla group to get something like this out there.

God I hate Microsoft licensing. You're right, you can use Web edition of Windows Server. I've been searching this for hours.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobu y/licensing/priclicfaq.mspx

Here's an exerpt from the preceding page:

The End User License Agreement states that CALs are required for access or use of the server software and goes on to list usage examples. If I am using the server in a way that is not listed (e.g., as an application server), do I still need CALs?

A. Yes. The list of examples in the End User License Agreement is not exhaustive but is instead meant to illustrate some common uses of the server software. If a device or user is accessing or using the server software, a CAL is required, unless:

  access is through the Internet and is unauthenticated, or

  access is to a server running Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, or

  access or use is by an External User and External Connector licenses are acquired instead of CALs.

Yeah, software is not lucrative, especially not office suites and operating systems. I mean there has never been ANY company which ever succeeded in that market without forcing the software to run only on closed-architecture hardware. Nope, NO one has ever succeded at that, and there have certainly never been any people who have become billionaires in that exact market. Nope, it's definitely a losing business strategy, certainly not anything you would ever see result in a Fortune 500 company. No, you're right, Apple is best off avoiding that market altogether and not focus on software licensing. It's a silly idea. ;)

Yeah, software is not lucrative, especially not office suites and operating systems. I mean there has never been ANY company which ever succeeded in that market without forcing the software to run only on closed-architecture hardware. Nope, NO one has ever succeded at that, and there have certainly never been any people who have become billionaires in that exact market. Nope, it's definitely a losing business strategy, certainly not anything you would ever see result in a Fortune 500 company. No, you're right, Apple is best off avoiding that market altogether and not focus on software licensing. It's a silly idea. ;)

Yeah, 800 MHz. That's one insane machine!

Alt tab with cool little pictures of the apps has been a powertoy for quite some time (2002 iirc). So, no, not completely new.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

There have been dozens of third party apps that do the translucency - it hasn't caught on because it is, quite frankly, annoying and hard to read / tell the difference between a greyed out menu item and one that is not greyed out.

But this won't work for the "masses" until prices come way down for SMS.
Microsoft still wants like US$1,219 for SMS 2003 with 10 Client Management Licenses!

But this won't work for the "masses" until prices come way down for SMS.
Microsoft still wants like US$1,219 for SMS 2003 with 10 Client Management Licenses!

> but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install:

[Deep breath. Count to 10]

Sir, you are speaking rot.

My little laptop (PII, 400 Mhz, 4G partition, 196M memory) has been happily running Red Hat for the last 7 years. As of now it has KDE, OpenOffice 1.1, and a full gnuC/C++ and Sun Java development environment (excluding the kernel source), and a whole bunch of other stuff on it (including some open source stuff to download MP3's to my iPod). And (wait for the steak knives) ... it boots W2k on the other 4G partition (but I never use that bit because it runs quite a bit slower)

And it runs dandy. Performs just as sharp (and better for comms) as my childrens' brand spanking new 2.7G, 1G memory, 120G storage XP machine that they insisted on for games. Fits in my briefcase (it's an ultralight), and has been all over the world with me. Never had to get a bigger box because some vendor pushed some more bloatware at me during their upgrade cycle.

Now remind me ... what's the minimum spec for Vista? (Which is what we're talking about if we're talking upgrades). Can I upgrade the W2k partition and get better performance? According to this site http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/eval uate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx I'll need a minimum of:

- 800 Mhz CPU
- 512 Mb
- 20G storage

Doesn't seem likely does it? So why should I fix what ain't broke?

See my previous post about authenticating users, as opposed to Anonymous.

It doesn't matter when using Web edition if the users need to be authenticated or not. Sql Server processor licenses also don't matter when authenticating users.

Secondly, I said Sql 2005 Workgroup 1 Processor. Please show me a link to a Authorized Reseller of SQL 2005 Standard 1 Processor for $2999.

I don't have a link, because like most companies, we have a representive at CDW that quotes us. I do have the order printed and sitting on my desk though, so I do know how much we paid (since I was involved in helping spec out what we need).

You wouldn't use CAL model for unlimited connections to SQL unless of course you have unlimited CALs. That's why you use the Processor license model.

We did use the processor license model.

Check your facts before chewing me out.

Again, I have the order confirmation sitting on my desk.

From MS:
Client access licenses (CALs) do not apply to Windows Server 2003 Web Edition. However, Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used as the scale-out front end for applications such as Windows SharePoint Services and Windows Rights Management Services. In these scale-out configurations, Windows Server CALs and/or Exchange CALs may still be required.

And Organizations cannot use Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, to deploy Microsoft SQL Server, other than SQL Server 2005 Express Edition.

Please tell me which facts I got wrong.

Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm. Shit, that's twice as much as the servers I'd run it on! Grid computing and server farms are very poorly suited to a commercial operating system.

Ugh, what a load of FUD if I ever heard it. Mod this ignorant moron down, as anyone setting up a Windows web farm would buy Windows Server 2003, Web Edition for $400. Its likely cheaper with volume licensing.

You can always start here. The best source for tutorials is google. ;-) Download the Visual Web Developer express for free. It might be the only Visual Studio that you ever need to develop .net web apps and web services. A lot of app wizards use SQL Server by default. If you are lazy like me you will be tempted to use them. I recommend not doing that. There are drivers for postgresql, mysql and just about everything else out there.

Some nice things that might help you out AFTER you've gotten your feet wet:
1. Data layer code generation with Mygeneration and dOOdads. http://www.mygenerationsoftware.com/
2. Well defined (clean) URLs: http://metasapiens.com/PageMethods/
3. Ajax (What you want is the UpdatePanel): http://atlas.asp.net/

The best advice that I can give you to make the transition is to think in terms of applications instead of scripts. That might not make sense now but eventually it will be obvious. And always use code-behind.

If you need any specific advice you can email me at my username at gmail. Helping each other is what the slashdot community should be about. :-)

Actually, Javascript can cause memory leaks in IE as well:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/IETechCol/dnwebgen/ie_leak_patterns .asp

I haven't tested it lately because I tend to stay away from IE, but a couple of years ago it was quite easy to slow a user's system down while viewing a page in IE by using Javascript to scroll text across the browser's status bar. Many Websites that had tools and toys for Web developers would warn of the danger of using Javascript for scrolling text effects. The effects would be noticeable in minutes rather than days.

* * * * * *

I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it.
--Groucho Marx

You don't have to.

You can get the web edition server for less than $400 USD.

I can usually buy two or three of those with the money that I save in development time. Your results might vary, everybody likes something different. If I had to buy 50 of those then I might consider using something like JBOSS or LAMP.

Ya, I wouldn't want to pay that either. Luckily, Windows doesn't cost that much money.

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, 32-bit version - $399 Open NL
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $999 (5 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $1,199 (10 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition - $3,999 (25 CALS)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobu y/licensing/pricing.mspx

You can also get licenses for a lot less than retail on eBay, and it's perfectly legal. I've purchased Web Edition for as little as $200, and Enterprise for $1200. There are lots of companies who buy these things in bulk and end up not using them.

In addition, if you're not hosting an external site (customer facing) you can get an Action Pack subscription for about $300 that gives you access to up to 5 licenses for each of these OS's.

See: https://partner.microsoft.com/40016470

Ya, I wouldn't want to pay that either. Luckily, Windows doesn't cost that much money.

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, 32-bit version - $399 Open NL
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $999 (5 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $1,199 (10 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition - $3,999 (25 CALS)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobu y/licensing/pricing.mspx

You can also get licenses for a lot less than retail on eBay, and it's perfectly legal. I've purchased Web Edition for as little as $200, and Enterprise for $1200. There are lots of companies who buy these things in bulk and end up not using them.

In addition, if you're not hosting an external site (customer facing) you can get an Action Pack subscription for about $300 that gives you access to up to 5 licenses for each of these OS's.

See: https://partner.microsoft.com/40016470

There was requirement about "native interface". Only when Opera will learn that double-click used to select text (not to open pop-up menus). When drag'n'drop will finally start working (try to drag URL from location bar to create link, try to drop link to open in new window/tab). When UI will be drawn using host OS (menus are always too thin - provided the amount crap in the menus - they are barely readable, controls don't use system font, etc etc etc) When tabs will be closing in the order they are on screen - not some random order. When tabs would be simply switching by Ctrl-Tab. And finally when about box will be what it is meant to be - dialog box.

Until then, tradition of Opera to break UI rules with every new release, does no good. Opera can called anything - but "native application." Unstandard keyboard shortcuts (easy to mistype), unstandard behavious (always confusing with other applications), etc. "Native application" doesn't mean "picture looks like everything else". Opera's "nativity" - is skin deep only. For definition of what native application I can only direct you (and hopefully Opera's devels) to sources: MS Guidelines for UI development & Apple's HIG & GNOME HIG. Read that before reinventing square wheels. Send that to Opera - probably they do not know about the guidelines.

Mozilla people spend lot of time making sure that people used to various OSs and various UI standards will feel themself comfortable. Specifically goal of Firefox was good integration with host OS - Windows or Linux - even Mac OS X support now improved greately. Br... Somebody stop me. I'm flaming.

First, a rewrite. Changes are highlighted in bold:

"Microsoft kills off support for Windows 98 and Windows ME today, and nobody is reporting that the move will boost demand for Windows 2000 on bittorrent . Unlike two years ago -- when support for Win98 was extended because so many people complained about the early cutoff -- this time it seems there is no turning back."

Seriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.

Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.

In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:

"I suspect that Microsoft's original extension of the Windows 98 support date a couple of years ago was, in part, to make sure Linux was not brought in to replace these systems."

Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.

It's not Myspace. It's Microsoft. Why, for whatever reason, should Windows Media Player download and start an executable file from an unknown party?

Here's what Microsoft put in Media Player 10. See Windows Media Digital Rights Management (security). (Not your security; the content owner's security.) To play a packaged digital media file, the consumer must first acquire a license key to unlock the file. The process of acquiring a license begins automatically when the consumer attempts to acquire the packaged digital media file, acquires a pre-delivered license, or plays the file for the first time. Windows Media Rights Manager either sends the consumer to a registration page where information is requested or payment is required, or "silently" retrieves a license from a clearing house.

That mechanism requires a Microsoft-approved license server, and apparently these attackers don't have one. So they use a related feature, which allows content to run a client-side script. This does show the user a popup; its not totally silent. But if the popup is answered, the script can download and install anything.

As soon as some attacker gets their hands on a Microsoft-approved license server, they can craft much better attacks. You don't even have to break into anything; there's a published SDK. Yes, there's code-signing and you have to sign an agreement. But if you can get past that, you 0wn anything that downloads your content. Even mobile devices.

Except that it's no longer true. Windows itself is limited to 32,000 (or thereabouts) unicode characters, it's just the ANSI (instead of Unicode) Win32 file I/O functions are limited to 255 characters. See this, for the docs. (Okay, it's a little murky quite where the limits are - but certainly the NT Kernel and NTFS don't have this limitation; the Win32 layer may have it still, especially in the older API calls.)

Because you have to use the Unicode API instead of the ANSI API, there is varying support for long paths among windows programs. As an example, the version of Robocopy distributed with the Windows 2000 resource kit is limited to 255 character paths, but the version distributed with the Windows 2003 is limited to 32k paths.

Can this thing take the place of a cell phone? Here's what I want:

• Digital ink notepad, for taking notes in meetings, classes, etc. where text recognition is intrusive.
• Ability to enter text with a pen, such as what I am writing in this post ... could be text of a mail message, for example.
• Cell phone.
• A really smart calendar that will take the system out of stand-by to announce an appointment.
• Web browser, mail client, all the usual PC stuff.

But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.

Will Vista run on computers with less, just lose some features, so M$ might not want manufs putting the "capable" sticker on lesser hardware so that Vista won't look crummy? I mean, XP is technically capable of running in 640x480 16-color mode...

Vista will run on less than the "Vista Capable" requirements, but probably without even the "basic" version (non-Aero) of the new user interface, which requires a DirectX 9 card. Without a DirectX 9 card, I think it will run with the Classic interface, which looks similar to Windows 20000. Vista's minimum supported system requirements are:

• Processor: 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• System Memory: 512 MB
• GPU: SVGA (800x600)
• Graphics Memory: - (not applicable?)

But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.

Will Vista run on computers with less, just lose some features, so M$ might not want manufs putting the "capable" sticker on lesser hardware so that Vista won't look crummy? I mean, XP is technically capable of running in 640x480 16-color mode...

Vista will run on less than the "Vista Capable" requirements, but probably without even the "basic" version (non-Aero) of the new user interface, which requires a DirectX 9 card. Without a DirectX 9 card, I think it will run with the Classic interface, which looks similar to Windows 20000. Vista's minimum supported system requirements are:

• Processor: 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• System Memory: 512 MB
• GPU: SVGA (800x600)
• Graphics Memory: - (not applicable?)

I always thought Microsoft was the king of 'BETA' labels. Can anyone confirm this?

So, for $1,100 you can have a slow, short battery life, and expensive laptop PC. Or for $600, you can give up the touch screen, get a faster CPU, faster hard drive and a bigger, higher resolution screen and get a basic notebook computer. Too much price for too little bang.

Primarily, the multiple streams in NTFS were made to support storing Macintosh dual-fork files (data & resources) on an NTFS volume. Wikipedia, Microsoft, and others have more information. Since then, the alternate data streams have been used for many other purposes.

Did you know that XP used the streams to store the summary information about documents? MSDN has the details.

I remember an anti-virus program was keeping the MD5 of each scanned file in an NTFS stream, a la tripwire.

Primarily, the multiple streams in NTFS were made to support storing Macintosh dual-fork files (data & resources) on an NTFS volume. Wikipedia, Microsoft, and others have more information. Since then, the alternate data streams have been used for many other purposes.

Did you know that XP used the streams to store the summary information about documents? MSDN has the details.

I remember an anti-virus program was keeping the MD5 of each scanned file in an NTFS stream, a la tripwire.

From here:

Use Short File Names

Every time you create a file with a long file name, NTFS creates a second file entry that has a similar 8.3 short file name. A file with an 8.3 short file name has a file name containing 1 to 8 characters and a file name extension containing 1 to 3 characters. The file name and file name extension are separated by a period.

If you have a large number of files (300,000 or more) in a folder, and the files have long file names with the same initial characters, the time required to create the files increases. The increase occurs because NTFS bases the short file name on the first six characters of the long file name. In folders with more than 300,000 files, the short file names start to conflict after NTFS uses all the 8.3 names that are similar to the long file names. Repeated conflicts between a generated short file name and existing short file names cause NTFS to regenerate the short file name from 6 to 8 times.

To reduce the time required to create files, use the fsutil behavior set disable8dot3 command to disable the creation of 8.3 short file names. (You must restart your computer for this setting to take effect.) For more information about disabling 8.3 short file names, see "MS-DOS-Readable File Names on NTFS Volumes" later in this chapter.

If you want NTFS to generate 8.3 names, improve performance by using a naming scheme in which long file names differ at the beginning of the name instead of at the end.

For more information about short file names, see "File Names in Windows XP Professional" later in this chapter.

You know, I was about to go on some huge environmental rant about how "people like you are the ones killing because you don't want to wait 90 seconds for your computer to come on." But then I did a little research and found out that turning your computer off at night isn't much different then letting it sleep. Of course, the computer has to be configured to do this, but it's not all that complicated. Now, I'm sure that if the quad-zillion computers around the world were all turned off at night (Energy Star says that minimal usage is 2.3 watts) as opposed to just sleeping, that's 2.3 quad-zillion watts saved. But such mass conformity is unreasonable.

I do, however, take issue that it's "bad" for reboots to be perceived as a pain in the ass. I would encourage users everywhere to complain loudly whenever they have to reboot, specifically to the authors of whatever software forced it upon them. I think the more people that find things unacceptable (IE's implementation of CSS, for example) and refuse to abide them, the more things either get fixed or replaced. This goes quad-zillion-double for reinstalling the OS.

I know this might sound a bit offtopic, but since the post mentioned windows filesystems, I felt it might be a good place to throw this question...
Not many people know or have even used this, but NTFS has support for multiple streams of data in a single file, which is something that borrows concepts from object-oriented filesystems. This is scarcely, if at all, included in the regular windows documentation (it is documented in the MS knowledge base http://support.microsoft.com/kb/105763/). I thought it to be a nice idea for, say, media files, to store the audio in one stream the the video in another, or adding subtitles or metainformation in different streams in a very standard way. But for some reason nobody used that, not even Microsoft who designed the feature.
Does anybody have a clue as to why this has not been used?

Autocomplete via Tab key was only made avilible wint winxo's cmd.exe.

Not true.

It was available in Windows 2000, but required a registry edit to turn on.

In Windows XP it became on-by-default.

I usually turn off short file name generation, it just seems like a wasteful thing to do in 2006.

See http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=121007

and other cool options at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/fsutil_behavior.mspx? mfr=true

I usually turn off short file name generation, it just seems like a wasteful thing to do in 2006.

See http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=121007

and other cool options at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/fsutil_behavior.mspx? mfr=true

Sorry, didn't know there's an "IBM Linux"

There isn't - but please tell me how that has any impact on IBM being a Linux vendor.

IBM is also a Windows vendor - but there's no "IBM Windows".

In fact there are thousands of Windows vendors. Are you implying that each one of them has their own Windows distribution?

Ok Ellison is dissatisfied with red hat support. It would have been worse if actual OS users were. Like that other operating system's users sometimes are...

Yes, you're right: Microsoft already created a new, modern OS to fix otherwise basic design problems in the old one. Unfortunately, the only supported API on that OS, Win32, was based very heavily on Win16 (it even boasted almost full source-level compatibility with Win16 if you followed the rules) and brought obsolete, harmful conventions with it that Microsoft still can't get rid of. It also didn't help that a subset of Win32 was ported to the old OS line in Windows 95, and was THE Microsoft consumer OS line until 2001.

What came with Win32 were single-user conventions that don't include any local security or discrete users. There are lots of pieces of software for Win32 that require the system to go into single-user emulation mode, requiring administrator access all the time and the use of only one user profile. Most programs just ignore the new SecurityDescriptor, DesiredAccess etc. parameters of Win32 create functions-- the security parameters that Win16 didn't have, and Win95 doesn't implement.

Win32 also brought the old and quirky windowing system where parameters are packed into type-unsafe blobs, multiple messages represent the same thing slightly differently, messaging order is often strange but preserved for compatibility (i.e. WM_MINMAXINFO being sent before WM_NCCREATE or WM_CREATE), and many other inconsistencies. Not to mention that just having two applications of different privilege levels display windows on the same desktop represents a security vulnerability, again for historical reasons predating Win32.

Creating NT was certainly a clean break from the earlier OS line. IMO, it's an architecture worth keeping. Win32 as an operating environment compared to Win16, wasn't revolutionary and IMO needs to go. Half-implementations of Win32 didn't help any; the Win95 implementation level of Win32 still needs to be phased out.

A COA should always be included with the accompanying license components such as the hologram media, manuals, and other documentation. End users are licensed only if all accompanying components are distributed with the COA.

For example, it wouldn't be too hard to write a DirectX driver for a virtual display device that simply passes every frame it sees into a filter for recording.

DirectShow already has the Sample Grabber filter, which can be inserted nearly anywhere in a filter graph. Insert it before a renderer and you can capture whatever gets passed to the renderer.

(This assumes that you can construct a filter graph to play a DVD (or whatever) and then modify the graph. It's also not something you'll be able to do from within GraphEdit, as GraphEdit knows nothing about the ISampleGrabber interface.)