The question is... did they update the installer for Solaris on Intel or does the user still have to use a version of fdisk which was also part of MSDos 1.0 ?
Wanneer jij zo goed Nederlands kan schrijven als ik Engels, lullen we weer verder:P
Especially when you see the adds :)
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
/. runs MS adds. If you are really an organisation with balls and stand for 100% behind your opinion, you don't run adds for a company you disgust because of practises in the past.
However, in every 3 pages I click open I see MS adds. What was that saying again... never bite the hand that feeds you or something?;)
Since when are 'leaked rumours' (!) news, based on facts? Here we have an article which bases conclusions (!) on rumours.
Ok, not that the conclusions are then worth anything, but still some remarkable opinions are ventilated in the article, even when you take into account the conclusion-based-on-rumour factor.
For example: "Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," he said. Come again? We're talking about a new PCI architecture here, not about a new soundcard!. And since when can I install AIX or HP-UX on ANY i386 system? Ever installed Solaris for Intel on an Intel machine you also happen to use as a workstation (f.e. with Linux on another partition?). The 'he' person definitely doesn't have a clue whatsoever about tying an OS to hardware. It's in all situations very important the OS works flawlessly with the hardware it's installed on, so yes, every OS is tied to a subset of available hardware. Big deal.
Ok, then we move on to: "I'd like to see Microsoft act like the operating-system leader it is, not promising scores of new features or letting rumors fly but stepping forward and saying, 'We will have X, Y and Z features and not A, B and C,' " he said. "That would be leadership, especially when so many people are dependent on you." WTF is the 'he' person to ask for this? First he throws in the rumours no-one confirmed as being true (the article clearly states MS didn't say a word about any detail concerning Longhorn) and then he wants MS to clear the sky for him about the rumours and to step forward about any featureset they'll implement in an OS which isn't even in Alpha-stadium nor a releasedate has been set.
Like Linus is going to talk about features in the 3.2 kernel, released somewhere in Q4 2004, "because so many people are dependent on you.". Sure...
Here we have a state which proclaims to do whatever it takes to make life better for us, customers, but on the other hand, the REAL person who wants to do whatever it takes to make it better for customers, Ralph Nader, only gets a handfull of votes.
Now, if the people in massachusetts are really concerned about their rights as a customer, next time, vote Ralph Nader, and don't vote for ego-tripping wannabee's who now are running the appeal.
Ok, that some people don't understand the big importance of a good, solid, 100% compatible.NET framework on Linux, fine.
But... why 2 frameworks? (Mono and DotGNU). Why is it so damn hard to just focus on the importance of a solid.NET framework on linux so ALL the developers who understand the importance of.NET on Linux join forces and work on 1 platform only (I prefer Mono for this, since it's intentions are better: 100% compatability with MS'.NET api).
Now, Mono can use more developers but these developers are working on their own port of.NET: DotGNU!
I know this has something to do with politics, something to do with licensing. It DOESN'T have anything to do with different technical views on the matter.
I simply can't understand why people are so far fetched focussed on politics instead of the art of software development. Now Linux will probably end up with Mono being finished way too late (if it's not finished in 2003, MS will release generics in.NET first so Mono will be behind that release for another year) and another platform, DotGNU with functionality that only complies on the ECMA standard, and thus is pretty useless in everyday applications, since System.Data, System.Web.* and System.Windows.* are pretty useful. (understatement).
As a.NET developer on Windows I'd like to see a solid.NET platform on f.e. Linux which is compatible with.NET from MS so my customers won't have to use Win2k or Win.net server to run my ASP.NET applications, but have more of a choice. When there is no.NET platform on Linux, Linux is not interesting for me or for my customers, and believe me (looking at what power is inside ASP.NET f.e.) in the future also not interesting anymore for a LOT of developers.
As a.NET developer I don't give a rats *ss on which platform my software runs, but currently it's just Win2k +.NET (from MS), fine by me. If Mono succeeds on Linux, I can run my software without modification on Linux too, which is a good thing since then the amount of servers which run my software increases, and thus my potential customer base grows too.
If there will be NO.NET on Linux however, and.NET really takes off (it already begins to do that), Linux won't be a logical choice for the application server platform. In other words: linux will go down the same road Novell took years ago.
The article clearly moans on and on about how Windows doesn't do this and doesn't do that. While XP f.e. DOES do a hell of a lot the author claims it doesn't. (moving a file where shortcuts point to f.e.)
Also, be glad the OS has a gui. Having to learn every darn flag of every darn commandline tool out there (plus where they are located) and having to know every layout/syntaxis of every config file out there is way way way more painful than clicking on some buttons.
Sure, 10 programs with 10 buttons each is also complex, but the programs regularly come with documentations, explaining the usage. And what should developers do? A lot of people claim they can't even operate a VCR for crying out loud.
But don't call it true open source, or redefine the definition of Open Source. I mean: what's the difference between a closed source dev team who ask friends for advice on things vs an 'open source' team which does the same? (an anonymous developer has to be very very good and convincing to get his patch approved in the main kernel).
That was my point. Because I mentioned Microsoft it gets moderated 'flamebait', which clearly shows the true vision of some people with moderators here.
In a project that's open in its true form, where people from all over the world work on the same project without restrictions, there isn't 1 king with more than 1 agenda.
However, in this case, there is: Linus. I fully agree that you can't include every patch supplied by every developer out there, but his trackrecord clearly shows that he refuses patches for other reasons than crappy coding. (read: political reasons).
Admitted, it's the team that should stick together and you can better favor a teammember than some stranger and neglect the teammember, but that has also the disadvantage that the RESULT of such actions is not that much different than what happens at say Microsoft: there, also a team works on Windows and you can submit ideas and patches (if you can, some can since some organisations have the sourcecode) till doomsday, if the team lead doesn't find these patches and ideas up to par, they're refused and ignored.
So: refusing patches because the code is crappy, agreed. Refusing patches because the teamleader thinks it will destabelize the projectteam or for other unknown reasons, partly agreed, as long as you don't call yourself an open source developer, since the end result is just closed source development where the sourcecode produced is downloadable.
Sun should improve their own stuff, like the Java SDK, to meet MS quality as shown in the.NET SDK. Non-developers might start laughing now, but I'm dead serious: MS has the best stuff available for developers: a kick ass developer website (MSDN website) and f.e. a kick ass SDK for.NET (with excellent documentation, tools and examples).
So why on earth should I start using Sun stuff and abandone MS stuff, in a way that makes MONEY for Sun? Sun hardware, their cashcow, is very expensive, and competes with IBM, not with MS, their Java is nice, but MS' material is better...
When I started developing software after university graduation in 1994, Sun was king and if you wanted to use Unix (PC/MS stuff was err... crap:) ) you focussed on Sun's hardware. Today this is not the case anymore: Win2k server on a dead cheap Dell with.NET (free) will do perfectly. So why bother with expensive Sun hardware? Because it runs till doomsday without a reboot? I can buy 2 Dell servers and 2 win2k licenses for these boxes plus a hardware load balancer for the price of a sun server. Such a setup WILL run till doomsday and I still save money.
And IF I want to leave the MS ship, I can remove the Win2k from those boxes, install a Linux distro and start using Java. Sun won't get a dime.
So, looking at all this, the REAL reason Sun has lost a lot of money is not due to MS, but because there are cheaper alternatives which WILL meet the requirements of the customer. Sun isn't the first option for many people, it's an option for a shrinking group of people. This lawsuit isn't helping Sun at all, since this lawsuit will not make Sun an option for a growing group of people AGAIN, will not make money for Sun in the long run. The reason for this is that there are MORE alternatives than the wintel combination: Linux + Java.
McNealy should really start thinking about how to make Sun no.1. again by making Sun a valuable option, instead of crying fool about a competitor who simply does what it should do: make money, and lots of it.
Slashdot posts some screenshots taken from an early beta of a 'who knows when it's released, if ever'-Microsoft Operating System, and what do you think will happen?
a) The server with the images won't receive a lot of hits through Slashdot, since no Linux user is interested in screenshots of a future Microsoft OS ("It's probably V4p0r anyway") b) The server gets slashdotted 3 minutes after the posting went up, because almost every user visiting the homepage of slashdot is interested in screenshots of a future Microsoft OS.
I guessed a), but... gosh... b) is the right answer. I wonder why though..:)
Some here moan about "This is nothing new!", "[insert company here] did this in [insert random year here]"!!
If that's so true, why can't I go to a store and buy a product with the specs of the TabletPC or better?
The TabletPC is the first incarnation of a kind of product some people will find useful. Let them. The moment you all start to cry out loud that it's nothing new, it will suck or similar crap, think about this: "as soon as a competitor comes up with a more useful product running Linux, you have all right to cry fool. Until then, shut up, learn and listen."
The vectorization of the handwriting, f.e. the copy/paste functionality of your handwritten text into an email, it's cool stuff. As software-developers, you have to admit: it's software that has a serie of interesting specs.
Why oh why is it then so damn hard to admit MS made something cool? Because it doesn't run Linux? So? "Use the tool that fits the job.(tm)".
The only MS product currently filled with holes is Internet Explorer. The rest is patched fairly fast and reliably. Please, give me a list of security holes currently in Windows2000 which can't be patched. I'm sure you have a long list of them, since you say: "[...]most any MS product is shock-full of security holes! "
Also the BoP issue is well documented on your side I'm sure. Why don't you put up a page where we all can see where the issues are and how MS screws customers over?
You say: "Big Brother is just another voice that has recognized how bad M$'s software and licensing has become."
Now, stop crying and tell me, IN WHAT WAY is SQLServer a bad piece of software and IN WHAT WAY is SQLServer f.e. badly licensed, compared to competitors like DB2 and Oracle ?
Ah... the silence is hurting, isn't it?
If you want to talk about what's bad: the moderation on the reactions to the newsposting. You scoring a +4 on an utterly piece of flamebait with words like 'M$ trash'. A great formulation of a non-biased view on the topic, isn't it?
IPSec VPN is used nowadays. I doubt a lot of servers are harmed (NT4 uses PPTP VPN if you haven't installed a 3rd party product. Win2k server uses IPSec).
MS also said that they can't find a way to make this vulnerability to execute code on the target, vulnerable machine (CNet.com's article on this). An advisory from an unknown group which hasn't informed the vendor first but finds it necessary to cry out loud from the top of their lungs that they found a possible flaw in an old protocol and everyone should know about it, isn't very trustworthy IMHO. I think the german security group was running low on attention. Well, they got their attention now.
I hope next time they are not this stupid and think about the people who run vulnerable systems and first discuss the flaw with the vendor and after a period (say 3 weeks) publish the flaw.
To the people who lost loved ones: all the best and I hope you'll find the strength to move on.
That aside, the whole thing is getting on my nerves. I'm living in The Netherlands, Europe and our press tends to show us different news than what's just on CNN. And there is a lot more to tell than the 'We are the best' stuff, aired on CNN and other patriotic channels.
- Widows of foreign workers who died in the massacre on 9/11/2001, will be deported out of the country. Because they were allowed to stay in the USA due to their husbands job, because that husband is dead now, the widows have to leave... pronto. Excuse me? - Remember all the innocent people still in jail, ONE YEAR after the disaster, without a trial. At least 500 men are still held in custody without a trial or accusation that they committed a crime and that they will be trialed at a later date. Nothing, they are just held into custody. No offence, but isn't that the same system 3rd world dictators use to keep the people doing what they want? It's definitely NOT part of any reasonable definition of 'democracy' and 'freedom'. - The CIA hasn't found any evidence against Saddam Hussein concerning Al Quayda. Remember: the laws the USA government pushed through congress after Sept. 11th, were for the war on terror (which is understandable). However, using these same laws, the current USA government is trying to use sept.11th and the results of that horrible crime to go after Saddam. You might think: "I don't care what reason they use", but that's the beginning of the end: if a certain government with a lot of guns (the USA) starts to dislike another government, it shouldn't result in instant war, there should be a certain control in place. That's now gone, due to the US PATRIOT act and other shabby laws.
There are a lot of countries where people suffer due to the crimes committed by the governments of these countries, however the USA doesn't do a damn thing about THAT, like a lot of countries in Africa. (except selling guns of course). Let sept.11 be a landmark of how bad foreign policy can turn out and let it be a starting point to work on a solid WORLD where people understand eachother, instead of just kill whatever isn't compatible to a certain christian-right-wing policy cooked up in the white-house.
Not to put salt in open wounds, but in IIS, which uses threads, they use a concept build in Windows: apartments. You have single threaded apartments (STA) and multi-threaded apartments (MTA). The webserver itself uses threads for handling requests and when a certain library is called/opened by the code, that library takes care of in which apartmentstyle the code is ran: in an STA or in an MTA. VB6 com objects f.e. can't run in an MTA, so they are run in an STA. This is controlled by windows (as a configparam of the com object). So here you see a combination of both worlds: multi-threaded and safe where it has to be, without the hassle of forcing the developer to write threadsafe code when the code itself isn't multi-threaded, but the environment is.
Of course, there are some issues: when you let the code executed by the request of user A create an object in an STA and move that into a container which can hold both STA's and MTA's, and let code executed by the request of user B access that user A's STA object, you get thread unsafety and possible crap.
However: the OS's functionality offers the option to do it threadsafe and still have multi-threading in full effect. Perhaps a thing to look at for the thread/process guys in the Linux kernel team.
(It has been a long time, but afaik, a simple fork() is not forking off a complete new process, but a childprocess which runs as a thread inside the mother process, or am I mistaken? (if not: why then the threadsafetly crap NOW, because a fork() will result in the same issues)
very very many people using apache use linux. Linux threads are almost same performance as processes. Due to kernel limitation, you can stack only so many threads per process.Plus threaded model does not account for stability. One NULL pointer dereference and you're gone.
So, because limitations in Linux' kernel design, Apache 2.0 is held back? Interesting. What I wondered when reading your remark quoted above, was: apache can't be the only program which will benefit from multi-threading? I mean: a server with a database system on it will benefit greatly using threads for query processing. Processes are nice, and I know Unix' schedulers mainly first schedule processes and then threads, but if Apache or another program puts the spotlight on a flaw in Linux, why isn't it fixed?
Multi-threading is more efficient than multi-process, so why are Linux kernel designers still on the route to multi-process and not multi-thread? To me, this sounds like a flaw which Linus and friends don't want to solve for some reason.
Check out the second screenshot. 2 scrollbars of 2 different applications. One has a normal, ugly X scrollbar, the other has a nice look, probably inheriting the selected theme.
That, my friend, is a result of the true error in the whole picture: there is no consistency. People are doing what they think is right, but there is no big, guideline which will bring the whole system to a certain level because it's all worked out.
That is true for the gui, it's also true for kernel configuration. You are right about the fact that people shouldn't be hassling over which package should be installed and which option should be compiled into the kernel. On windows I just run setup and the system configs itself. I never have to recompile any kernel, because 1) I don't have the sourcecode (;)) but 2) I don't have to: WinXP will config itself and will work no matter what hw card I jam into the pci slots: install the driver (or better: xp has the driver already) and off you go. There is no need for compilation of a certain subsystem into the 'kernel'.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is... did they update the installer for Solaris on Intel or does the user still have to use a version of fdisk which was also part of MSDos 1.0 ?
And does it support multiboot or not?
Wanneer jij zo goed Nederlands kan schrijven als ik Engels, lullen we weer verder :P
/. runs MS adds. If you are really an organisation with balls and stand for 100% behind your opinion, you don't run adds for a company you disgust because of practises in the past.
;)
However, in every 3 pages I click open I see MS adds. What was that saying again... never bite the hand that feeds you or something?
Since when are 'leaked rumours' (!) news, based on facts? Here we have an article which bases conclusions (!) on rumours.
Ok, not that the conclusions are then worth anything, but still some remarkable opinions are ventilated in the article, even when you take into account the conclusion-based-on-rumour factor.
For example:
"Neither Linux nor Unix ties the operating system to hardware," he said.
Come again? We're talking about a new PCI architecture here, not about a new soundcard!. And since when can I install AIX or HP-UX on ANY i386 system? Ever installed Solaris for Intel on an Intel machine you also happen to use as a workstation (f.e. with Linux on another partition?). The 'he' person definitely doesn't have a clue whatsoever about tying an OS to hardware. It's in all situations very important the OS works flawlessly with the hardware it's installed on, so yes, every OS is tied to a subset of available hardware. Big deal.
Ok, then we move on to:
"I'd like to see Microsoft act like the operating-system leader it is, not promising scores of new features or letting rumors fly but stepping forward and saying, 'We will have X, Y and Z features and not A, B and C,' " he said. "That would be leadership, especially when so many people are dependent on you."
WTF is the 'he' person to ask for this? First he throws in the rumours no-one confirmed as being true (the article clearly states MS didn't say a word about any detail concerning Longhorn) and then he wants MS to clear the sky for him about the rumours and to step forward about any featureset they'll implement in an OS which isn't even in Alpha-stadium nor a releasedate has been set.
Like Linus is going to talk about features in the 3.2 kernel, released somewhere in Q4 2004, "because so many people are dependent on you.". Sure...
Here we have a state which proclaims to do whatever it takes to make life better for us, customers, but on the other hand, the REAL person who wants to do whatever it takes to make it better for customers, Ralph Nader, only gets a handfull of votes.
Now, if the people in massachusetts are really concerned about their rights as a customer, next time, vote Ralph Nader, and don't vote for ego-tripping wannabee's who now are running the appeal.
It started already dead:
:)
Dead Operating System.
It zombied along for a long time though, eating up brains^H^H^H^H^Hhigh mem you needed to run games
Ok, that some people don't understand the big importance of a good, solid, 100% compatible .NET framework on Linux, fine.
.NET framework on linux so ALL the developers who understand the importance of .NET on Linux join forces and work on 1 platform only (I prefer Mono for this, since it's intentions are better: 100% compatability with MS' .NET api).
.NET: DotGNU!
.NET first so Mono will be behind that release for another year) and another platform, DotGNU with functionality that only complies on the ECMA standard, and thus is pretty useless in everyday applications, since System.Data, System.Web.* and System.Windows.* are pretty useful. (understatement).
.NET developer on Windows I'd like to see a solid .NET platform on f.e. Linux which is compatible with .NET from MS so my customers won't have to use Win2k or Win.net server to run my ASP.NET applications, but have more of a choice. When there is no .NET platform on Linux, Linux is not interesting for me or for my customers, and believe me (looking at what power is inside ASP.NET f.e.) in the future also not interesting anymore for a LOT of developers.
But... why 2 frameworks? (Mono and DotGNU). Why is it so damn hard to just focus on the importance of a solid
Now, Mono can use more developers but these developers are working on their own port of
I know this has something to do with politics, something to do with licensing. It DOESN'T have anything to do with different technical views on the matter.
I simply can't understand why people are so far fetched focussed on politics instead of the art of software development. Now Linux will probably end up with Mono being finished way too late (if it's not finished in 2003, MS will release generics in
As a
As a .NET developer I don't give a rats *ss on which platform my software runs, but currently it's just Win2k + .NET (from MS), fine by me. If Mono succeeds on Linux, I can run my software without modification on Linux too, which is a good thing since then the amount of servers which run my software increases, and thus my potential customer base grows too.
.NET on Linux however, and .NET really takes off (it already begins to do that), Linux won't be a logical choice for the application server platform. In other words: linux will go down the same road Novell took years ago.
If there will be NO
The article clearly moans on and on about how Windows doesn't do this and doesn't do that. While XP f.e. DOES do a hell of a lot the author claims it doesn't. (moving a file where shortcuts point to f.e.)
Also, be glad the OS has a gui. Having to learn every darn flag of every darn commandline tool out there (plus where they are located) and having to know every layout/syntaxis of every config file out there is way way way more painful than clicking on some buttons.
Sure, 10 programs with 10 buttons each is also complex, but the programs regularly come with documentations, explaining the usage. And what should developers do? A lot of people claim they can't even operate a VCR for crying out loud.
But don't call it true open source, or redefine the definition of Open Source. I mean: what's the difference between a closed source dev team who ask friends for advice on things vs an 'open source' team which does the same? (an anonymous developer has to be very very good and convincing to get his patch approved in the main kernel).
That was my point. Because I mentioned Microsoft it gets moderated 'flamebait', which clearly shows the true vision of some people with moderators here.
In a project that's open in its true form, where people from all over the world work on the same project without restrictions, there isn't 1 king with more than 1 agenda.
However, in this case, there is: Linus. I fully agree that you can't include every patch supplied by every developer out there, but his trackrecord clearly shows that he refuses patches for other reasons than crappy coding. (read: political reasons).
Admitted, it's the team that should stick together and you can better favor a teammember than some stranger and neglect the teammember, but that has also the disadvantage that the RESULT of such actions is not that much different than what happens at say Microsoft: there, also a team works on Windows and you can submit ideas and patches (if you can, some can since some organisations have the sourcecode) till doomsday, if the team lead doesn't find these patches and ideas up to par, they're refused and ignored.
So: refusing patches because the code is crappy, agreed. Refusing patches because the teamleader thinks it will destabelize the projectteam or for other unknown reasons, partly agreed, as long as you don't call yourself an open source developer, since the end result is just closed source development where the sourcecode produced is downloadable.
Sun should improve their own stuff, like the Java SDK, to meet MS quality as shown in the .NET SDK. Non-developers might start laughing now, but I'm dead serious: MS has the best stuff available for developers: a kick ass developer website (MSDN website) and f.e. a kick ass SDK for .NET (with excellent documentation, tools and examples).
:) ) you focussed on Sun's hardware. Today this is not the case anymore: Win2k server on a dead cheap Dell with .NET (free) will do perfectly. So why bother with expensive Sun hardware? Because it runs till doomsday without a reboot? I can buy 2 Dell servers and 2 win2k licenses for these boxes plus a hardware load balancer for the price of a sun server. Such a setup WILL run till doomsday and I still save money.
So why on earth should I start using Sun stuff and abandone MS stuff, in a way that makes MONEY for Sun? Sun hardware, their cashcow, is very expensive, and competes with IBM, not with MS, their Java is nice, but MS' material is better...
When I started developing software after university graduation in 1994, Sun was king and if you wanted to use Unix (PC/MS stuff was err... crap
And IF I want to leave the MS ship, I can remove the Win2k from those boxes, install a Linux distro and start using Java. Sun won't get a dime.
So, looking at all this, the REAL reason Sun has lost a lot of money is not due to MS, but because there are cheaper alternatives which WILL meet the requirements of the customer. Sun isn't the first option for many people, it's an option for a shrinking group of people. This lawsuit isn't helping Sun at all, since this lawsuit will not make Sun an option for a growing group of people AGAIN, will not make money for Sun in the long run. The reason for this is that there are MORE alternatives than the wintel combination: Linux + Java.
McNealy should really start thinking about how to make Sun no.1. again by making Sun a valuable option, instead of crying fool about a competitor who simply does what it should do: make money, and lots of it.
Slashdot posts some screenshots taken from an early beta of a 'who knows when it's released, if ever'-Microsoft Operating System, and what do you think will happen?
:)
a) The server with the images won't receive a lot of hits through Slashdot, since no Linux user is interested in screenshots of a future Microsoft OS ("It's probably V4p0r anyway")
b) The server gets slashdotted 3 minutes after the posting went up, because almost every user visiting the homepage of slashdot is interested in screenshots of a future Microsoft OS.
I guessed a), but... gosh... b) is the right answer. I wonder why though..
.. otherwise it's pretty painfull for the eye, searching for 'longhorn' on google...
SELECT * FROM BugTraq_SecurityFlaws WHERE FlawCause LIKE '%buffer%overflow%' ORDER BY OSType ASC
Some here moan about "This is nothing new!", "[insert company here] did this in [insert random year here]"!!
If that's so true, why can't I go to a store and buy a product with the specs of the TabletPC or better?
The TabletPC is the first incarnation of a kind of product some people will find useful. Let them. The moment you all start to cry out loud that it's nothing new, it will suck or similar crap, think about this: "as soon as a competitor comes up with a more useful product running Linux, you have all right to cry fool. Until then, shut up, learn and listen."
The vectorization of the handwriting, f.e. the copy/paste functionality of your handwritten text into an email, it's cool stuff. As software-developers, you have to admit: it's software that has a serie of interesting specs.
Why oh why is it then so damn hard to admit MS made something cool? Because it doesn't run Linux? So? "Use the tool that fits the job.(tm)".
The only MS product currently filled with holes is Internet Explorer. The rest is patched fairly fast and reliably. Please, give me a list of security holes currently in Windows2000 which can't be patched. I'm sure you have a long list of them, since you say:
"[...]most any MS product is shock-full of security holes! "
Also the BoP issue is well documented on your side I'm sure. Why don't you put up a page where we all can see where the issues are and how MS screws customers over?
In what way is f.e. SQLServer 'bad software' ?
You say: "Big Brother is just another voice that has recognized how bad M$'s software and licensing has become."
Now, stop crying and tell me, IN WHAT WAY is SQLServer a bad piece of software and IN WHAT WAY is SQLServer f.e. badly licensed, compared to competitors like DB2 and Oracle ?
Ah... the silence is hurting, isn't it?
If you want to talk about what's bad: the moderation on the reactions to the newsposting. You scoring a +4 on an utterly piece of flamebait with words like 'M$ trash'. A great formulation of a non-biased view on the topic, isn't it?
IPSec VPN is used nowadays. I doubt a lot of servers are harmed (NT4 uses PPTP VPN if you haven't installed a 3rd party product. Win2k server uses IPSec).
MS also said that they can't find a way to make this vulnerability to execute code on the target, vulnerable machine (CNet.com's article on this). An advisory from an unknown group which hasn't informed the vendor first but finds it necessary to cry out loud from the top of their lungs that they found a possible flaw in an old protocol and everyone should know about it, isn't very trustworthy IMHO. I think the german security group was running low on attention. Well, they got their attention now.
I hope next time they are not this stupid and think about the people who run vulnerable systems and first discuss the flaw with the vendor and after a period (say 3 weeks) publish the flaw.
because MS moved on to IPSec based VPN. PPTP is not the VPN layer anymore. Win2k and XP have IPSec based VPN functionality build in.
Kindergarten cryptography? Don't think so.
To the people who lost loved ones: all the best and I hope you'll find the strength to move on.
That aside, the whole thing is getting on my nerves. I'm living in The Netherlands, Europe and our press tends to show us different news than what's just on CNN. And there is a lot more to tell than the 'We are the best' stuff, aired on CNN and other patriotic channels.
- Widows of foreign workers who died in the massacre on 9/11/2001, will be deported out of the country. Because they were allowed to stay in the USA due to their husbands job, because that husband is dead now, the widows have to leave... pronto. Excuse me?
- Remember all the innocent people still in jail, ONE YEAR after the disaster, without a trial. At least 500 men are still held in custody without a trial or accusation that they committed a crime and that they will be trialed at a later date. Nothing, they are just held into custody. No offence, but isn't that the same system 3rd world dictators use to keep the people doing what they want? It's definitely NOT part of any reasonable definition of 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
- The CIA hasn't found any evidence against Saddam Hussein concerning Al Quayda. Remember: the laws the USA government pushed through congress after Sept. 11th, were for the war on terror (which is understandable). However, using these same laws, the current USA government is trying to use sept.11th and the results of that horrible crime to go after Saddam. You might think: "I don't care what reason they use", but that's the beginning of the end: if a certain government with a lot of guns (the USA) starts to dislike another government, it shouldn't result in instant war, there should be a certain control in place. That's now gone, due to the US PATRIOT act and other shabby laws.
There are a lot of countries where people suffer due to the crimes committed by the governments of these countries, however the USA doesn't do a damn thing about THAT, like a lot of countries in Africa. (except selling guns of course). Let sept.11 be a landmark of how bad foreign policy can turn out and let it be a starting point to work on a solid WORLD where people understand eachother, instead of just kill whatever isn't compatible to a certain christian-right-wing policy cooked up in the white-house.
:)
No text.
Not to put salt in open wounds, but in IIS, which uses threads, they use a concept build in Windows: apartments. You have single threaded apartments (STA) and multi-threaded apartments (MTA). The webserver itself uses threads for handling requests and when a certain library is called/opened by the code, that library takes care of in which apartmentstyle the code is ran: in an STA or in an MTA. VB6 com objects f.e. can't run in an MTA, so they are run in an STA. This is controlled by windows (as a configparam of the com object). So here you see a combination of both worlds: multi-threaded and safe where it has to be, without the hassle of forcing the developer to write threadsafe code when the code itself isn't multi-threaded, but the environment is.
Of course, there are some issues: when you let the code executed by the request of user A create an object in an STA and move that into a container which can hold both STA's and MTA's, and let code executed by the request of user B access that user A's STA object, you get thread unsafety and possible crap.
However: the OS's functionality offers the option to do it threadsafe and still have multi-threading in full effect. Perhaps a thing to look at for the thread/process guys in the Linux kernel team.
(It has been a long time, but afaik, a simple fork() is not forking off a complete new process, but a childprocess which runs as a thread inside the mother process, or am I mistaken? (if not: why then the threadsafetly crap NOW, because a fork() will result in the same issues)
very very many people using apache use linux. Linux threads are almost same performance as processes. Due to kernel limitation, you can stack only so many threads per process.Plus threaded model does not account for stability. One NULL pointer dereference and you're gone.
So, because limitations in Linux' kernel design, Apache 2.0 is held back? Interesting. What I wondered when reading your remark quoted above, was: apache can't be the only program which will benefit from multi-threading? I mean: a server with a database system on it will benefit greatly using threads for query processing. Processes are nice, and I know Unix' schedulers mainly first schedule processes and then threads, but if Apache or another program puts the spotlight on a flaw in Linux, why isn't it fixed?
Multi-threading is more efficient than multi-process, so why are Linux kernel designers still on the route to multi-process and not multi-thread? To me, this sounds like a flaw which Linus and friends don't want to solve for some reason.
Check out the second screenshot. 2 scrollbars of 2 different applications. One has a normal, ugly X scrollbar, the other has a nice look, probably inheriting the selected theme.
That, my friend, is a result of the true error in the whole picture: there is no consistency. People are doing what they think is right, but there is no big, guideline which will bring the whole system to a certain level because it's all worked out.
That is true for the gui, it's also true for kernel configuration. You are right about the fact that people shouldn't be hassling over which package should be installed and which option should be compiled into the kernel. On windows I just run setup and the system configs itself. I never have to recompile any kernel, because 1) I don't have the sourcecode (;)) but 2) I don't have to: WinXP will config itself and will work no matter what hw card I jam into the pci slots: install the driver (or better: xp has the driver already) and off you go. There is no need for compilation of a certain subsystem into the 'kernel'.