Does Visual Basic.NET work with my Mozilla browser running on Linux?
Yes.
The.NET part exists only on the server side of things, so the only thing that Mozilla would see is HTML, maybe some EMCA script, and maybe some XML. The XML is standards compliant as well.
That's just stupid. What we want is for Microsoft to leave the OS arena, not "be killed." We don't need their stinking OS, nor do we need their stinking browser integration.
They do, however, provide some excellent development software and office software, if you want to pay for it. If you say "MS Die!," then you should be willing to say "Valve Die!" and "IBM Die!," because both of those companies release software that is not open.
The parent of your post alludes to MS giving up a desktop monopoly in favor of providing their own software on top of a platform independant framework. I doubt this would happen, MS will continue trying to undermine businesses with sales of Windows, and what better to leverage that with than MS Office? There's far too much money in the monopoly market for them to turn their backs on it.
I wouldn't say that they want to be painted into a corner, but that they have a few reasons not to run away from MS. Consider:
.Net is an excellent development platform, which happens to be supported by the company that provided them with the OS's that they are running now.
They have been using MS for so long that it's become a habit. Breaking habit like that is like trying to quit smoking crack.
The stability and performance of the alternatives are usually shadowed in a poor light.
I'm not saying that there isn't some really bad junk going on, propoganda and FUD wise, but I really think that most people would go with.NET because it's in line with what they are used to doing. They in no way want to be painted into a corner, rather they just do it out of habit. In fact, they probably don't even see it as being painted into a corner.
Mono, Pnet, and dotGNU are then extremely important, and should continue in development. Any alternative that provides that same functionality of MS's stuff is a good thing. It may come to a time where they have to make a serious decision, and then go with the free alternative that provides the same API, functionality, in addition to better stability and security. Hopefully, we will have these projects in a mature, stable, and secure state.
Java isn't an open language because it doesn't have a set in stone grammar. C++ does, C# does, C does, hell, 3 different varieties of SQL do. Java has been held from the ISO standardization by Sun, because Sun wants to retain control over the Java language.
There is a difference between free virual machine implementations and a free language. One is just software, the other is a bit more important. You could possibly write a VM for C++, and anyone who wrote any kind of program in C++ would be gauranteed that their program would run in your virtual machine. This is not the same for Java, where if I wrote a Java 1.5 version program, you can be sure that it probably wouldn't run in Kaffe, Blackdown, or any of the other implementations.
I wouldn't worry about Microsoft shutting down Mono. The peeps at Mono are not using the source code that MS has released, so they are less at risk for copyright infringement. They are looking at the behaviours of the different libraries, then mimicking them with their own versions. Copying functionality != copying code.
There is also no reverse engineering going on, since every API function is fully documented in MSDN. If we know what the function does, we don't necessary have to program the function in the same exact way. The DMCA will be ineffective.
If there are patent issues, which I find very unlikely, there's no reason why we just can't re-write the offending code to offer the same functionality in a different way. That is what is stated on the MONO website.
Microsoft commited itself to spreading.NET around, whether for good or for bad. If they find that there's a completely different implementation of their API, there won't be much that they can do about it. Look at how MS handled the Apple case for prior art.
Ugh. I hated those optical mice that Sun made. They had those at MTU back when I was in attendance there, but the mouse pads would get scratched by the mouse, making the optical reading horrible. You'd have to scootch the mouse off the end of the pad a few times just to get the pointer across the screen, and that's even with the sensitivity turned up.
Oh... and yeah, we were using CDE at the time as well. At least it was useful for opening terminal windows.:-P
I got an 80386 16 Mhz machine stashed at my parents. It has 1MB of RAM (640K + 384 High). It runs DR-DOS 5.0 and Geoworks.
I remember when I got that thing running falcon 3.0 (off of 6 or 7 5.25" floppies). I was so proud of myself.
I also have an Emerald Tape (Reel) backup device and ISA card. It won't fit in any of my machines any more... it's longer than a Voodoo5.
grr... It's... Too... Difficult...
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
To RTFA. I got to paragraph 70, and started drifting. This whold thing is a whole bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Microsoft wants to focus on sidling up to the customers, finding ways in which their product can fill holes. That's all fine, I suppose, if were any company but Microsoft.
Knowing them, they'll sidle up to you, ask about your future plans, and when you say that MS innovation has stagnated, and that you want to do a switch to MAC or Linux... they'll declare sales-war on your ass. A new desktop in 2006! My goodness. In three years, the Linux kernel has gone from late 2.2's and early 2.4's to late 2.4's and early 2.6's. Linux has gone through more than just two major revisions (say pre-emptive kernel, VM, etc).
They don't quite understand that sitting on a product will never net sales. They also don't realize that the Open Source community has been a major contibutor to real innovation, in a big way.
Tell me how it's not the same with a Windows user going to linux?
Windowsupdate involves extra clicks to see what the updates do. Also, the automatic update service does not tell you what the updates fix. The linux update services will grab the updates, then tell you what they do before you install them. Roblimo has a valid complaint here.
This issue has been addressed already. Windows doesn't have a set program that handles the quicklinks, so if you expect there to be one, you're lost. This is addressed in the last article, where you have a user who is used to one thing that is trying to use a system that is different. There is very little of what you expect there to be, forcing you to learn something different. Learning something differently, and being forced to, is something that most humans abhore.
The google toolbar is extra software that doesn't get shipped with the system. That was his point. Most windows users bitch when they go to Linux because they don't know how to use RPM managers or portage to get what they want. How is a non-windows user going to know what the Google toolbar is, when he's got a great browser that has the same functionality integrated? His point is valid yet again, because ignorance of the new system for a new user is a very real issue.
His other point about Windows Messenger is also very valid. Even when you run updates, you'll still get pop-ups that are sent from net send. You have to either turn off the windows messenger service (something that a Linux user may not be familiar with the system enough to know), or you need to stick in a firewall that blocks those ports. You could also modify the permissions to the service with Dcomcnfg, but I wouldn't expect any brand new windows user to know anything about that.
Think about the most complaints that you hear about linux when Windows users switch: No MS Office, How do I set up printing, How do I run updates, Where do I get software to install, Why can't I drag things into the menus and shortcut bars, etc. An experienced linux user will come up with the same kind of post that you have, which tries to explain how easy it is to do these things. Both of these sides fail to understand the issue, which is that branch new and unfamiliar users do not know how to do these things. Neither interface is intuitive enough so that they can grok it instantaneously.
I don't quite understand how you got an "interesting," since you've posted a knee-jerk reaction to an article's details, and not the actual meaning of the article.
Make sure that the AutoPlay feature is enabled in the registry:
Click Start, and then click Run.
Type regedit, and then click OK.
In Registry Editor, locate the following registry key:
In the right pane, go to step g if the value for Autorun is 1.
If the value for Autorun is 0, right-click Autorun, and then click Modify.
In the Edit DWORD Value dialog box, type 1 under Value data, and then click OK.
A value of 0xb5 in the following registry key turns off the AutoRun feature for CDs:
heh. I was so adamant about dual monitors that I purchased a Matrox G450 Millenium online and had it shipped to my workplace. I had the oppurtunity to nab a second (identical) monitor too, so now I've got a dual 19" trinitron solution going.
A coworker buddy of mine just nabbed a dual headed Radeon VE and another monitor too, but I guess that the ATI drivers are super buggy for dual displays. We set his resolution to 1600X1200 for both monitors in "desktop extended" mode (or whatever it's called), which made his system really unstable. We set it to 1280X1024, and his system hangs periodically, but he's sticking with it because two monitors is way better than one.
As for usefulness, I'd have to say that it's fantastic. I've got a whole page of code sitting here that I'm debugging, with the form on the other monitor. When I step through the code, I can watch the changes occur on the other monitor. If it were a single headed display, I would have to suffer through the taskbar to bring the form to the front.
Oh, and it's also good for faking productivity too. You can claim that you've been coding, because there's not proof that you haven't been using the code display, even though Slashdot is open in the foreground of the other monitor.
I don't think that these stats are entirely true. Most alternate browsers have options that let you set the identifier string of the browser. This helps when you hit a page that intentionally sets the margins for non-IE browsers somewhere off of the edge of the page.
So why are all the browser controls at the *top* of the browser window instead of down the side?
I don't think many people use them once they get used to the mouse buttons & keyboard commands. I only use them when I'm using IE, and it's being stupid, and clicking on buttons up there seems to force it to do things.
Hell, Enlightenment is the bomb too. It's fast and snappy, has those visual effects (if you want that kind of thing), and hopefully E.17 gets done soon.
I would hand the source back to them (if I had it) only if I had it written in contract that they were not going to prosecute me for retaining possession of the code. That, and I'd make sure that they also had a clause in there saying that they were going to hire me.
I am actually not sure why Gentoo is so popular right now..
Portage.
I don't see any other distro out there that handles new software installs quite so well, with exception of apt. Mucking around with RPM's sucks, and I remember trying to use the updater that is shipped with Mandrake... ugh (oh, and ads. ugh).
With portage, all I need is to do an emerge XX in order to get XX. Sure, I'll wait a while for it, but it runs in the background and doesn't disturb anything. If I want to update it, I just do an emerge -u XX (or world.)
Gentoo also gets better, providing binaries in portage in addition to just the source. If there's a reason why Gentoo is popular, I'd say that it's the portage system.
The company that I work at bought a license for this peice of garbage about two years ago. We went with the DBF version, since it was $500 compared to $3000 + for the SQL Server version. I ended up writing a web reporting engine for it in ASP.
Their database scheme sucks, as does their front end. The database is not normalized, there are a few places where tables reflect eachother's data, and even those don't match sometimes. The interface allows for editing in all the wrong places, etc. We ended up brewing our own tracking system based on ASP.NET, and writing a conversion from the DBF's to our own format.
All requests for help are logged by the support specialists, while all programming requests (features, bugs, new applications) are handled by the IT director. We still have the classic paper form for people to fill out, they are then faxed to an e-mail account, or handed to someone in IT. The requests is then entered into the system, assigned to one of us, the paper sheet is scanned in (if it wasn't emailed), and an e-mail is sent to all responsible parties.
The new system allows for updates to be entered, as well as IT's own private development notes. Everything is public to the users, since it is the goal to make everyone aware of the load that IT has at the moment. Searches can be made based on the requestor, responsible, "committee" (a thing born from consultants), department, request type (programming, new hardware, support, etc), and urgency. We also have detailed reports that can be run by anyone.
If we hear bitching about "Why do they get theirs first," we usually just brush it off politely. There really isn't anything you can do to keep everyone 100% satisfied, you can only make sure you get the work done in a timely manner. Thank goodness that the majority of people at our company are civil and intelligent in that manner.
I believe the poster is suggesting something like a laptop on the desk for the internet/email/public network, then having a separate development network with the huge-ass workstation for the development. Makes sense to me.
Yeah. Still, if it kills off a few of these homeless people it's not a bad thing, eh?
That's the difference between a London cabbie and a New Yorker cabbie. The London cabbie will comment on the danger of the weather. The New Yorker will just say "screw the weather" and take the homeless removal into his own hands.
See, being civil is so much more advanced than not.
"Palestine" and "Palestinian" are names that were given to a particular group of arabs by the Romans between 100BC - 200AD. This name came from the latin-ization of "philestine," which was one of the tribes. The only problem is that the people that were labelled such were not members of this tribe! The Romans just didn't know what to call these people, and so called them Palestinians. Palestine never existed before the Romans, although Israel definitely did.
I can't stand it when people insist that there is a Palestine. It doesn't exist on the map, and the members of this "nation" are really just arabs with their head-wiring done wrong.
Not to be arbitrary, but I don't think that "Earthstation 5" will have the oppurtunity to be installed on these mission critical systems. I imagine that the military or any financial institution would be very concerned about finding p2p file-sharing packets mixed in with the rest of their bandwidth.
I think that only home/private users would/could be affected by this thing.
In any organization this will happen. SCO is saying that IBM moved the code into Linux on purpose to destroy UNIX.
If I were the judge, I'd ask SCO how it is possible to "destroy" UNIX. Is there some way that IBM can wipe millions of lines of code off of millions of computers, and confiscating millions of binary installation CD's just by copying UNIX source code into Linux? UNIX is not a company like Netscape was, and I believe that SCO is the only entity that is out there that bases it's entire operation upon UNIX. Everyone else that ships UNIX ships it with hardware, consulting services, etc.
If SCO claimed that IBM was trying to destroy SCO by copying the source into Linux, it would make a bit more sense. Of course, the intent to destroy SCO would be very difficult to prove.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Visual Basic.NET work with my Mozilla browser running on Linux?
Yes.
The .NET part exists only on the server side of things, so the only thing that Mozilla would see is HTML, maybe some EMCA script, and maybe some XML. The XML is standards compliant as well.
That's just stupid. What we want is for Microsoft to leave the OS arena, not "be killed." We don't need their stinking OS, nor do we need their stinking browser integration.
They do, however, provide some excellent development software and office software, if you want to pay for it. If you say "MS Die!," then you should be willing to say "Valve Die!" and "IBM Die!," because both of those companies release software that is not open.
The parent of your post alludes to MS giving up a desktop monopoly in favor of providing their own software on top of a platform independant framework. I doubt this would happen, MS will continue trying to undermine businesses with sales of Windows, and what better to leverage that with than MS Office? There's far too much money in the monopoly market for them to turn their backs on it.
I wouldn't say that they want to be painted into a corner, but that they have a few reasons not to run away from MS. Consider:
I'm not saying that there isn't some really bad junk going on, propoganda and FUD wise, but I really think that most people would go with .NET because it's in line with what they are used to doing. They in no way want to be painted into a corner, rather they just do it out of habit. In fact, they probably don't even see it as being painted into a corner.
Mono, Pnet, and dotGNU are then extremely important, and should continue in development. Any alternative that provides that same functionality of MS's stuff is a good thing. It may come to a time where they have to make a serious decision, and then go with the free alternative that provides the same API, functionality, in addition to better stability and security. Hopefully, we will have these projects in a mature, stable, and secure state.
Java isn't an open language because it doesn't have a set in stone grammar. C++ does, C# does, C does, hell, 3 different varieties of SQL do. Java has been held from the ISO standardization by Sun, because Sun wants to retain control over the Java language.
There is a difference between free virual machine implementations and a free language. One is just software, the other is a bit more important. You could possibly write a VM for C++, and anyone who wrote any kind of program in C++ would be gauranteed that their program would run in your virtual machine. This is not the same for Java, where if I wrote a Java 1.5 version program, you can be sure that it probably wouldn't run in Kaffe, Blackdown, or any of the other implementations.
I wouldn't worry about Microsoft shutting down Mono. The peeps at Mono are not using the source code that MS has released, so they are less at risk for copyright infringement. They are looking at the behaviours of the different libraries, then mimicking them with their own versions. Copying functionality != copying code.
There is also no reverse engineering going on, since every API function is fully documented in MSDN. If we know what the function does, we don't necessary have to program the function in the same exact way. The DMCA will be ineffective.
If there are patent issues, which I find very unlikely, there's no reason why we just can't re-write the offending code to offer the same functionality in a different way. That is what is stated on the MONO website.
Microsoft commited itself to spreading .NET around, whether for good or for bad. If they find that there's a completely different implementation of their API, there won't be much that they can do about it. Look at how MS handled the Apple case for prior art.
Ugh. I hated those optical mice that Sun made. They had those at MTU back when I was in attendance there, but the mouse pads would get scratched by the mouse, making the optical reading horrible. You'd have to scootch the mouse off the end of the pad a few times just to get the pointer across the screen, and that's even with the sensitivity turned up.
Oh... and yeah, we were using CDE at the time as well. At least it was useful for opening terminal windows. :-P
I got an 80386 16 Mhz machine stashed at my parents. It has 1MB of RAM (640K + 384 High). It runs DR-DOS 5.0 and Geoworks.
I remember when I got that thing running falcon 3.0 (off of 6 or 7 5.25" floppies). I was so proud of myself.
I also have an Emerald Tape (Reel) backup device and ISA card. It won't fit in any of my machines any more... it's longer than a Voodoo5.
To RTFA. I got to paragraph 70, and started drifting. This whold thing is a whole bunch of hogwash, if you ask me. Microsoft wants to focus on sidling up to the customers, finding ways in which their product can fill holes. That's all fine, I suppose, if were any company but Microsoft.
Knowing them, they'll sidle up to you, ask about your future plans, and when you say that MS innovation has stagnated, and that you want to do a switch to MAC or Linux... they'll declare sales-war on your ass. A new desktop in 2006! My goodness. In three years, the Linux kernel has gone from late 2.2's and early 2.4's to late 2.4's and early 2.6's. Linux has gone through more than just two major revisions (say pre-emptive kernel, VM, etc).
They don't quite understand that sitting on a product will never net sales. They also don't realize that the Open Source community has been a major contibutor to real innovation, in a big way.
Tell me how it's not the same with a Windows user going to linux?
His other point about Windows Messenger is also very valid. Even when you run updates, you'll still get pop-ups that are sent from net send. You have to either turn off the windows messenger service (something that a Linux user may not be familiar with the system enough to know), or you need to stick in a firewall that blocks those ports. You could also modify the permissions to the service with Dcomcnfg, but I wouldn't expect any brand new windows user to know anything about that.
Think about the most complaints that you hear about linux when Windows users switch: No MS Office, How do I set up printing, How do I run updates, Where do I get software to install, Why can't I drag things into the menus and shortcut bars, etc. An experienced linux user will come up with the same kind of post that you have, which tries to explain how easy it is to do these things. Both of these sides fail to understand the issue, which is that branch new and unfamiliar users do not know how to do these things. Neither interface is intuitive enough so that they can grok it instantaneously.
I don't quite understand how you got an "interesting," since you've posted a knee-jerk reaction to an article's details, and not the actual meaning of the article.
Copied straight from MS:
Make sure that the AutoPlay feature is enabled in the registry:
Click Start, and then click Run.
Type regedit, and then click OK.
In Registry Editor, locate the following registry key:
In the right pane, go to step g if the value for Autorun is 1.
If the value for Autorun is 0, right-click Autorun, and then click Modify.
In the Edit DWORD Value dialog box, type 1 under Value data, and then click OK.
A value of 0xb5 in the following registry key turns off the AutoRun feature for CDs:
You must set the hexadecimal value to 91 to enable
the AutoRun feature.
On the File menu, click Exit.
Just do the reverse to turn it off. :-)
heh. I was so adamant about dual monitors that I purchased a Matrox G450 Millenium online and had it shipped to my workplace. I had the oppurtunity to nab a second (identical) monitor too, so now I've got a dual 19" trinitron solution going.
A coworker buddy of mine just nabbed a dual headed Radeon VE and another monitor too, but I guess that the ATI drivers are super buggy for dual displays. We set his resolution to 1600X1200 for both monitors in "desktop extended" mode (or whatever it's called), which made his system really unstable. We set it to 1280X1024, and his system hangs periodically, but he's sticking with it because two monitors is way better than one.
As for usefulness, I'd have to say that it's fantastic. I've got a whole page of code sitting here that I'm debugging, with the form on the other monitor. When I step through the code, I can watch the changes occur on the other monitor. If it were a single headed display, I would have to suffer through the taskbar to bring the form to the front.
Oh, and it's also good for faking productivity too. You can claim that you've been coding, because there's not proof that you haven't been using the code display, even though Slashdot is open in the foreground of the other monitor.
I don't think that these stats are entirely true. Most alternate browsers have options that let you set the identifier string of the browser. This helps when you hit a page that intentionally sets the margins for non-IE browsers somewhere off of the edge of the page.
So why are all the browser controls at the *top* of the browser window instead of down the side?
I don't think many people use them once they get used to the mouse buttons & keyboard commands. I only use them when I'm using IE, and it's being stupid, and clicking on buttons up there seems to force it to do things.
Quotas are set in the kernel. The easiest way to do this is to run either
or
QoS is somewhere in there, probably in the networking menu.
Hell, Enlightenment is the bomb too. It's fast and snappy, has those visual effects (if you want that kind of thing), and hopefully E.17 gets done soon.
I would hand the source back to them (if I had it) only if I had it written in contract that they were not going to prosecute me for retaining possession of the code. That, and I'd make sure that they also had a clause in there saying that they were going to hire me.
heh heh. That's funny.
I am actually not sure why Gentoo is so popular right now..
Portage.
I don't see any other distro out there that handles new software installs quite so well, with exception of apt. Mucking around with RPM's sucks, and I remember trying to use the updater that is shipped with Mandrake... ugh (oh, and ads. ugh).
With portage, all I need is to do an emerge XX in order to get XX. Sure, I'll wait a while for it, but it runs in the background and doesn't disturb anything. If I want to update it, I just do an emerge -u XX (or world.)
Gentoo also gets better, providing binaries in portage in addition to just the source. If there's a reason why Gentoo is popular, I'd say that it's the portage system.
The company that I work at bought a license for this peice of garbage about two years ago. We went with the DBF version, since it was $500 compared to $3000 + for the SQL Server version. I ended up writing a web reporting engine for it in ASP.
Their database scheme sucks, as does their front end. The database is not normalized, there are a few places where tables reflect eachother's data, and even those don't match sometimes. The interface allows for editing in all the wrong places, etc. We ended up brewing our own tracking system based on ASP.NET, and writing a conversion from the DBF's to our own format.
All requests for help are logged by the support specialists, while all programming requests (features, bugs, new applications) are handled by the IT director. We still have the classic paper form for people to fill out, they are then faxed to an e-mail account, or handed to someone in IT. The requests is then entered into the system, assigned to one of us, the paper sheet is scanned in (if it wasn't emailed), and an e-mail is sent to all responsible parties.
The new system allows for updates to be entered, as well as IT's own private development notes. Everything is public to the users, since it is the goal to make everyone aware of the load that IT has at the moment. Searches can be made based on the requestor, responsible, "committee" (a thing born from consultants), department, request type (programming, new hardware, support, etc), and urgency. We also have detailed reports that can be run by anyone.
If we hear bitching about "Why do they get theirs first," we usually just brush it off politely. There really isn't anything you can do to keep everyone 100% satisfied, you can only make sure you get the work done in a timely manner. Thank goodness that the majority of people at our company are civil and intelligent in that manner.
I believe the poster is suggesting something like a laptop on the desk for the internet/email/public network, then having a separate development network with the huge-ass workstation for the development. Makes sense to me.
Or you could just go for anything here. A sure sign of geeks with extra cash and time is a heavily modified voltron-esque case.
Yeah. Still, if it kills off a few of these homeless people it's not a bad thing, eh?
That's the difference between a London cabbie and a New Yorker cabbie. The London cabbie will comment on the danger of the weather. The New Yorker will just say "screw the weather" and take the homeless removal into his own hands.
See, being civil is so much more advanced than not.
"Palestine" and "Palestinian" are names that were given to a particular group of arabs by the Romans between 100BC - 200AD. This name came from the latin-ization of "philestine," which was one of the tribes. The only problem is that the people that were labelled such were not members of this tribe! The Romans just didn't know what to call these people, and so called them Palestinians. Palestine never existed before the Romans, although Israel definitely did.
I can't stand it when people insist that there is a Palestine. It doesn't exist on the map, and the members of this "nation" are really just arabs with their head-wiring done wrong.
Not to be arbitrary, but I don't think that "Earthstation 5" will have the oppurtunity to be installed on these mission critical systems. I imagine that the military or any financial institution would be very concerned about finding p2p file-sharing packets mixed in with the rest of their bandwidth.
I think that only home/private users would/could be affected by this thing.
In any organization this will happen. SCO is saying that IBM moved the code into Linux on purpose to destroy UNIX.
If I were the judge, I'd ask SCO how it is possible to "destroy" UNIX. Is there some way that IBM can wipe millions of lines of code off of millions of computers, and confiscating millions of binary installation CD's just by copying UNIX source code into Linux? UNIX is not a company like Netscape was, and I believe that SCO is the only entity that is out there that bases it's entire operation upon UNIX. Everyone else that ships UNIX ships it with hardware, consulting services, etc.
If SCO claimed that IBM was trying to destroy SCO by copying the source into Linux, it would make a bit more sense. Of course, the intent to destroy SCO would be very difficult to prove.