They may not intend to have users flash their Xbox's, in fact I highly doubt that. What may happen is that in future shipments of the Xbox, they may have an upgraded version of the BIOS. This is not a unique Microsoft idea, as the Dreamcast did this about a year after its original release.
Microsoft has a very strict testing program. Most open source software (with the notable exception of Mozilla), has no such testing program, when it works for the developers it is released. While most slashdotters will laugh at Microsoft having a testing process, they do, and it is one of the most important things for them. My guess would be that when they create a security patch they must first test to make sure it doesn't break something else. Microsoft has a lot of legacy software that they need to make sure their systems support and continue to support, even when they are patched.
it also will cause you major hassles if you need to upgrade your computer or reinstall it
This is not actually correct. Windows activation will not consider you to have a different computer until you've changed at least 3 major componants of your computer. Reinstalling without changing hardware will not cause activation to fail over the internet. In addition, if you change more than 3 componants and its been more than 120 days since your last "major" hardware change, activation will still work over the internet.
The only people who activation will be a problem for are those people who are pirating the software. I don't imagine that most of us are replacing more than 3 major parts of the computer more than once every 120 days.
But when Apple tells themes.org that it's not ok for them to use the OS X theme, that's an outrage, right? Linux having OS X themes is great, but Windows having one is just a total ripoff.
/. and WAP
on
WAP Bashing
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oddly enough I was just trying to access/. through a wireless card in my iPaq. Although in the FAQ, CmdrTaco claims that if I visit the site in a WAP compliant browser, I should see a WAP version of the page, it just doesn't happen. And the regular page is too busy to read on a small screen (in fact, scrolling is extremely slow). Instead of the auto-detect feature, I like what WebTender is doing...they have a seperate URL for WAP browsers, wap.webtender.com. Using a seperate URL in conjunction with an "autodetect" feature seems to be the best way for a site to go.
One issue is speed. The.NET runtime is much faster than Java. In the Beta 2 release, a tool called nGen is included, which can be used to "pre-jit" code, creating native images at install time. C# is also a very nice language, with several nicetieties that Java does not have including delegates (typesafe function pointers), user defined events, operator overloading, unsafe code for when you want to get down and dirty, the foreach construct, etc.
What you say is true, but you have to think of what Microsoft has to gain by allowing the source to be shared. More ports of.NET is good for Microsoft, and needlessly taking away the ability of people to port the platform would be foolish.
Also, as far as I can tell the GUI system for client side.NET apps is tied to GDI and Windows - it even says as much in the msdn System.* class hierarchy description.
This is true, the WinForms subsystem is currently tied to Windows, and it will not be part of the upcoming shared source release. However, Microsoft and Corel are working together to create a cross-platform GUI toolkit based upon TCL. Also, there is nothing about the actual WinForms interfaces that are tied to Windows, so I suspect that a few dedicated people might build a WinForms backend for GTK or QT, etc.
Note what I said.....you can use the original code as a basis to create your own port of the runtime. If you create your own port of the runtime, then you are free to GPL it, sure. However, if you take the code that will be released, slap your name on it, and then GPL it, that will most likely not be allowed;-).
it's pretty worthless without all the.NET APIs.
I think there has been some confusion about this. Part of what is being released is the BCL (base class library), which contains all the System.* classes, esentially the equivilent of the java.* classes in the Java platform. You will have access to these.
I'm not too clear about what you were trying to say here....if you mean, "Will I be allowed to GPL the C# compiler and CLI that Microsoft is releasing?" then the answer is most likely going to be no. However if you mean "Will I be able to write code that targets the.NET platform and is GPL'ed after looking at these sources?" Then the answer is yes you will.
I think I slightly misunderstood your first comment. Let me address a few of your points here.
there are several implementations of the Java core and extension APIs
This source will be available to be ported, and after it is released, there will be several implementations of the CLI and C#, etc.
Just as Java's value proposition is tiny without all those java.* and javax.* classes, so C#/CLR without the.NET APIs is pretty worthless
You have some misinformation here. Part of the CLR is the BCL (base class library) which provides the System.* classes. These are the equivilent of the java.* classes from Java.
I dismiss the CLR multi-language argument by pointing out the plethora of languages already available that target the JVM
Valid point about the JVM targeted languages, but don't dismiss the multi-language argument, just state that its not an advantage for either camp over the other but rather something that they have in common.
in each language that targets the CLR, it is only that subset of functionality of that language that is common to them all that is useful
I'm not 100% sure about this. I've used C#, manged C++ (I did not use multiple inheritence there, so I don't know about your argument), VB and Python for the.NET runtime, and I was not hindered at all by any constraints put on me by the runtime. I think, although I'm not sure, that there will not be artificial language restrictions placed upon code. However if it is true, one could make the same argument about the JVM....for instance can I use multiple inheritance with Perl for the JVM (if a port exists?)?
Yes, yes, and yes. This source will be available for non-commercial and educational use. It will be 100% free to port to any other platform/architecture you want to
Dot Net is M$'s attempt to take over the world wide web
.NET uses established protocols to do its communication. These are SOAP and http, both of which are W3C standards. This is hardly taking over the world wide web
This source will be open for non-commercial and academic use. You may learn from it. In fact you are 100% free to port the source to any platform/architecture you feel the need to. The actual license agreement has not been released yet, but so far definition #5 does not apply to this release.
Actually, the shared source product and the.NET platform are two different products having seperate code bases. They are based on the same standard, but they are not the same. Microsoft does not stand to directly "reap all the benefits" for the commercial.NET platform from this release.
This will be a completely open sourced version of the CLI which will include the BCL (base class library), the rough equivilent of MFC for managed code. However it includes much more, including the runtime and compilers. It may not be usefull to you directly, but if somebody ports it to your favorite operating system so you can use it, then it has indirectly become useful to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Telnet is a security hole!
I disagree that .NET fails the pr0n test. How long will it be until we see the first XML pr0n web service created with .NET?
They may not intend to have users flash their Xbox's, in fact I highly doubt that. What may happen is that in future shipments of the Xbox, they may have an upgraded version of the BIOS. This is not a unique Microsoft idea, as the Dreamcast did this about a year after its original release.
Yes you can ... go to Control Panel / Add remove Programs / Add Remove Windows Components. Its there to be removed.
The iTunes bug didn't just wipe your MP3's, it destroyed your entire hard drive including all your data.
Apple's bug fix involved inserting a pair of quotation marks. It wasn't like they had to find a subtle buffer overrun or something like that.
Microsoft has a very strict testing program. Most open source software (with the notable exception of Mozilla), has no such testing program, when it works for the developers it is released. While most slashdotters will laugh at Microsoft having a testing process, they do, and it is one of the most important things for them. My guess would be that when they create a security patch they must first test to make sure it doesn't break something else. Microsoft has a lot of legacy software that they need to make sure their systems support and continue to support, even when they are patched.
Unless... *gasp* you're calling Microsoft a liar and telling us that IE and Windows are indeed two separable products?
Actually, in Windows XP you can go to Add/Remove programs and remove IE.
Visual Studio .NET will ship on DVD and CD, so you can choose your preferred medium.
Never in the history of the PC has the part of the operating system been so pricey
$99 for the upgrade? Actually Win95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, NT were all this expensive.
2. XP is for eXPires
Microsoft has invented the software that eXPires as the customer can only install the software a certain number of times
There is no limit to the number of times you can install. Just as long as you're not installing it on different computers every time.
This is not actually correct. Windows activation will not consider you to have a different computer until you've changed at least 3 major componants of your computer. Reinstalling without changing hardware will not cause activation to fail over the internet. In addition, if you change more than 3 componants and its been more than 120 days since your last "major" hardware change, activation will still work over the internet.
The only people who activation will be a problem for are those people who are pirating the software. I don't imagine that most of us are replacing more than 3 major parts of the computer more than once every 120 days.
But when Apple tells themes.org that it's not ok for them to use the OS X theme, that's an outrage, right? Linux having OS X themes is great, but Windows having one is just a total ripoff.
Oddly enough I was just trying to access /. through a wireless card in my iPaq. Although in the FAQ, CmdrTaco claims that if I visit the site in a WAP compliant browser, I should see a WAP version of the page, it just doesn't happen. And the regular page is too busy to read on a small screen (in fact, scrolling is extremely slow). Instead of the auto-detect feature, I like what WebTender is doing...they have a seperate URL for WAP browsers, wap.webtender.com. Using a seperate URL in conjunction with an "autodetect" feature seems to be the best way for a site to go.
This is a good point, and something that remains to be seen. We'll have to wait a few months until the license is released to find out.
One issue is speed. The .NET runtime is much faster than Java. In the Beta 2 release, a tool called nGen is included, which can be used to "pre-jit" code, creating native images at install time. C# is also a very nice language, with several nicetieties that Java does not have including delegates (typesafe function pointers), user defined events, operator overloading, unsafe code for when you want to get down and dirty, the foreach construct, etc.
What you say is true, but you have to think of what Microsoft has to gain by allowing the source to be shared. More ports of .NET is good for Microsoft, and needlessly taking away the ability of people to port the platform would be foolish.
This is true, the WinForms subsystem is currently tied to Windows, and it will not be part of the upcoming shared source release. However, Microsoft and Corel are working together to create a cross-platform GUI toolkit based upon TCL. Also, there is nothing about the actual WinForms interfaces that are tied to Windows, so I suspect that a few dedicated people might build a WinForms backend for GTK or QT, etc.
it's pretty worthless without all the .NET APIs.
I think there has been some confusion about this. Part of what is being released is the BCL (base class library), which contains all the System.* classes, esentially the equivilent of the java.* classes in the Java platform. You will have access to these.
I'm not too clear about what you were trying to say here....if you mean, "Will I be allowed to GPL the C# compiler and CLI that Microsoft is releasing?" then the answer is most likely going to be no. However if you mean "Will I be able to write code that targets the .NET platform and is GPL'ed after looking at these sources?" Then the answer is yes you will.
there are several implementations of the Java core and extension APIs
This source will be available to be ported, and after it is released, there will be several implementations of the CLI and C#, etc.
Just as Java's value proposition is tiny without all those java.* and javax.* classes, so C#/CLR without the .NET APIs is pretty worthless
You have some misinformation here. Part of the CLR is the BCL (base class library) which provides the System.* classes. These are the equivilent of the java.* classes from Java.
I dismiss the CLR multi-language argument by pointing out the plethora of languages already available that target the JVM
Valid point about the JVM targeted languages, but don't dismiss the multi-language argument, just state that its not an advantage for either camp over the other but rather something that they have in common.
in each language that targets the CLR, it is only that subset of functionality of that language that is common to them all that is useful .NET runtime, and I was not hindered at all by any constraints put on me by the runtime. I think, although I'm not sure, that there will not be artificial language restrictions placed upon code. However if it is true, one could make the same argument about the JVM....for instance can I use multiple inheritance with Perl for the JVM (if a port exists?)?
I'm not 100% sure about this. I've used C#, manged C++ (I did not use multiple inheritence there, so I don't know about your argument), VB and Python for the
Step 3. Point out that Linux doesn't (and can't run
This code will be 100% free to port to any platform you so please, including Linux.
Yes, yes, and yes. This source will be available for non-commercial and educational use. It will be 100% free to port to any other platform/architecture you want to
Dot Net is M$'s attempt to take over the world wide web
.NET uses established protocols to do its communication. These are SOAP and http, both of which are W3C standards. This is hardly taking over the world wide web
This source will be open for non-commercial and academic use. You may learn from it. In fact you are 100% free to port the source to any platform/architecture you feel the need to. The actual license agreement has not been released yet, but so far definition #5 does not apply to this release.
Actually, the shared source product and the .NET platform are two different products having seperate code bases. They are based on the same standard, but they are not the same. Microsoft does not stand to directly "reap all the benefits" for the commercial .NET platform from this release.
This will be a completely open sourced version of the CLI which will include the BCL (base class library), the rough equivilent of MFC for managed code. However it includes much more, including the runtime and compilers. It may not be usefull to you directly, but if somebody ports it to your favorite operating system so you can use it, then it has indirectly become useful to you.