ACPI is needed to solve interrupt conflicts. More and more people stuff more hardware in their computers, eating up the interrupts available. That's why ACPI is needed, and that's why by default Windows2000 and Windows XP install the ACPI compliant HAL (hardware abstraction layer) for the kernel.
If you don't want this HAL, but want a different one (like the standard HAL), press during the dos part of the install of Windows 2000 or Windows XP 'F7' when you see the 'Press F6 if you need to install a third-party SCSI or RAID driver' remark at the bottom of the screen.
You can't switch HAL's between the ACPI and the standard HAL after you've installed windows 2000 or windows XP, because Windows enumerates the hardware differently with different HAL's. You have to do a complete re-install to switch hal's and after that you can manually set interrupts.
However, you can also prevent Windows2000/XP to see if there is an ACPI bios, by switching off powermanagement in the bios. This sometimes helps (it did for me on my ASUS TUSL2-C board, since I didn't want an ACPI HAL because I suspected my SBLive to misbehave due to the interrupt sharing).
Bottom line however is: the hardware should be fully compliant with the ACPI system. Most hardware is, some isn't but still has drivers on the market for Windows2000/XP. If the motherboard can't provide a good ACPI system, it's not worth your money, because then there is something seriously wrong with it.
I ment: I want a different VFS, a different VM etc. You can't change that overnight. That takes serious effort and testing to see if all applications work with the new element in the OS.
Of course I can compile different stuff into the kernel. You can do that with windows too (install different services, drivers etc). It's about replacing OS parts with other parts from 3rd parties.
I don't think so. If MS will create a system where all it takes is a set of com components that then can be used as IE is used now in XP, would Netscape adopt that scheme and create such a set of components? They don't even do that today with NS6.x. They don't even use the native windowing code of Windows to render the interface. So chances are that MS will change XP, strip IE from it, create that interface so other browsers can plug right into the system, but no browser will! Sun made a Java plugin for IE. Did you see them advertise for it so users would download it? No. I bet the majority of the XP users doesn't even know that Sun makes that plugin.
And there is the problem: the USER doesn't care. Only MS competitors, blind zealots and professional whiners care. The USER wants XP with a browser. It comes with a browser, so he/she is happy. "Oh, there are more browsertypes? Are they better? No? Why would I want to use them then?".
So ask yourself: is this really about the customer (i.e.: the USER) ? Or is this about the sour grapes of the MS competition plus their loudmouth supporters?
without serious hacking. _THAT_'s what's this is all about. Sure they can replace a lot of lines of code to make Windows XP have a true modular interface for a webbrowser component so that that webbrowser component can do the help system, be the webbrowser of the system, work inside the filemanager (explorer) and be the desktop shell.
But that will take serious time and effort. Because it's not DESIGNED that way. Like the Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel where you can't just say "I want this and that in stead of what's in it now". You have to do serious hacking and patching and TESTING, since it will make the system probably unstable.
IE is the result of the usage of a lot of system components that are used ELSEWHERE in the system also. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making statements like "[he] is telling a big, fat lie", because you don't know jack shit about system design nor developing large pieces of software.
CS is not about what kind of features are in Windows, or are in Linux or are in XINU or in SunOS. It's about HOW you can develop software to solve a problem, by investigating the WHY first. This has nothing to do with any language nor platform.
In my days at the uni we had to write parts of the XINU os. (It's a unix clone for the PC, for educational purposes). Linux was in its 0.x versions. Is Linux inspiring? No. Not at all. You know why? Because I've seen it all before, even XINU had lots of stuff that's in Linux.
Ever looked at designdocuments of the Windows XP kernel? Or the Mach kernel? There is more on this planet than Unix.
The article isn't deep or flawless, but hits on a major point: what students learn in school is key to what they go on to do.
During my CS study, the only OS that was appropriate to talk about was Unix. Mentioning Microsoft during classes was forbidden, the only exception was when you wanted to show how great Unix was. (ok, it was back in the early '90 so MS wasn't that big then).
Nowadays I don't touch Unix at all. And probably never will again in the future if the win32/.NET platforms keep on getting better plus the tools keep on getting better.
The reason for this is not that the University was crap or anything, the point about the CS study is that you learn basic things about just that, CS. Not connected to a language, an OS, a certain editor or whatever. Students of today probably all learn Java in the 'OO programming' classes. Will they all keep on developing in Java after they're graduated? I don't think so.
If a student truely did understand what was taught and what was important, he/she will choose the right tool for the job.
It's a worm spread by mail via Outlook 2000 or earlier (Outlook XP strips executables) or Outlook Express that will overwrite some.NET core components. (and only when the user is able to do that, thus has the right to overwrite the file).
The virus is _NOT_ a.net program, it's NOT running on the.net platform and it's NOT messing around with files from managed code.
I've used CVS and VSS, plus some own made tools but these were never up to par with what other tools could offer. The mention of sourcesafe was indeed as an example. I know VSS isn't made for very large projects, even microsoft uses a different system internally afaik, but the functionality it has (i.e. the branching/merging) is IMHO what should be used in Linux development/management.
No, this is not a troll. Hear me out. This is an example how this work can be done using a good tool. I use Visual Sourcesafe here as an example, but any tool with the same functionality described below will do:
Visual Sourcesafe has the ability to merge back changes automatically in branch B from branch A when they have the same parent.
Say, you have the kernel v2.4.10. You branch off another project from it, call it v2.5.0. When you fix a bug in 2.4.11, you can merge it back into 2.5.0 without a hassle, it can be automated or you can do a visible merge when there are conflicts. The other way around also does work. So you can do this even further: branch of a prerelease 2.4.11-pre branch and a 2.4.11 branche from the 2.4.10 branch. Create fixes in 2.4.11-pre, merge them back into 2.4.11 after testing and when you're done, release 2.4.11 and get rid of 2.4.11-pre.
This is inside a versioncontrol system, you don't have to hassle around with a lot of files you have to merge by hand which will increase the risk for errors.
Of course, Visual Sourcesafe is just 'a' tool, you could use another which has the same functionality and is perhaps Open Source (I don't know of any but I'm sure others will). Doing this job by hand TODAY is erm... not understanding why we have computers in the first place. That's right: to serve mankind.
The reason for all this bufferoverflow crap is that in C, and thus also in C++, people tend to use arrays or blocks of allocated memory to represent strings. What's needed is a string datatype IN the language, like int and char. Then, the compiler can do as the CLR does: allocate the strings, even local scope ones, on the heap. This way, no buffer overflows can happen, since the type is in fact a black box, so the overflow will cause some kind of error, plus the overflow can't be used to modify the stackframe and thus the returnaddress, since the string variable isn't allocated on the stack.
In C++, there is the string class in the std lib, but it's not native to the language. (almost native ok, but not totally like in C#).
C is a language where the respect for the borders of a block of memory is in the hands of the developer. Clearly, that's too old fashioned today, since languageelements can prevent mistakes C allows developers to make.
The theme from Battlesquadron on the amiga is my all time fav. It's even more impressive when you know the composer just typed in hexnumbers in a texteditor:) I hope this site gets that tune up soon:)
I get 15 spam emails from.tw domains (not the fake addies, but the real origin) or chinese domains, on my old but still working mailaddy, DAILY, and that are slow days, sometimes I have more. They are for 100% useless to me, since I can't read/understand mandarin, nor am I living near the stores spamming me to pick up goodies they wanna sell me. If there is ONE thing I want to do is to shut out.tw domains from emailservers.
sounds really great, but i don't see it happening... nVidia, ATI, Voodoo, whomever will alway wanna do the next cool great thing and that's why the extensions are available... As an OpenGL developer, I can truely say: Extensions SUCK ASS. I've been keeping up with extensions with my DemoGL library for some time now, but it's a battle you can't win, there is no consistency, no 1 clear API, but there are a few: nVidiaGL (with the nv extensions) and ATIGL, with the ATI(X) extensions. Oh, and some drivers support OpenGL 1.2, others support OpenGL 1.3... Yeah, nice and all. (not).
And we all know MS wants DirectX to rule them all. OpenGL works, and is an open standard by definition.
OpenGL is a standard, but not 'open'. You don't have anything to say about what OpenGL will be in the next version. The ARB does, but they also are limited, since nVidia and ATI are always ahead of them, and because what they offer in propriety extensions is _THE_ stuff to use in bleeding edge 3D graphics, using an 'older' ARB standard is not the way to go to stay ahead of the pack of competitors.
Extensions in there make life interesting certainly, but you pretty much know what you're getting into when you try NV_texture_rectangle or NV_texture_shader.
Oh, do you? What if I have an ATI radeon 8500, these extensions are not available, I have to use ATI's syntaxis. But what's worse: you have to rely on the cardmanufacturers documentation for these extensions. I don't know if you've tried to figure out how to do cubemapping and compressed textures using nVidia's docs, but it's a pain to say the least.
With DirectX, there is one clear manual, one clear API and no zillion codepaths to code to support OpenGL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, nVidia's extensions, ATI's extensions etc.
I'm a developer on win32 platforms, so perhaps I shouldn't care, but I find it irritating at best that a person who put in so much effort to give the Open Source community the stuff they wanted, is critizised as if he's the lamest n00b in the world. And why is this? Because he's one of the very FEW on Linux platforms who has realized that today's way of computing is doomed and will be taken over by a new, more distributed way. Miguel took the brave stand to decide to implement a Microsoft based technique.
Oh brother, now he's true evil...
Get a life, zealots. If Mono kills Gnome (or better: makes Gnome obsolete), why would that be something bad? If Mono lets you run the applications you need, makes you use your Linuxbox the way you want and the way you need it, would you miss Gnome? I don't think so.
Mono is a hell of a project to complete, a lot of subprojects of Mono still need completion. If you want Linux to survive in the new era of computing, stop whining and start coding.
You can whine all you want, but unless you filled in a bugreport at the MS site, it's nothing more than hot air. Supply a bugreport, give an example where it doesnt work and you'll see it fixed in an updated version. Also: the W3C 'standards' are inconsistent and odd sometimes. CSS is a nice idea, but in the long run, it has to become a definition language how to visualize data (content). HTML shouldn't have become the language to lay out webpages in, since it's not pixel oriented and still has visualization tags.
The IE6 GUI is basic, yes, but it's a browser, not an IDE you live in all day. The links bar is ok, but limited if you want 20 buttons or so;).
The security issues are related to the fact that the design of the browser wasn't from a sandbox point of view: the sandbox is build later, but some parts have been forgotten, and are fixed as patches, the last one on feb 11th.
What makes me laugh when I see mozilla is that I simply can't understand why I should run a program that uses a nonnative gui renderer. The codebase is so huge I can't image what's in there. It's a HTML parser/renderer for crying out loud! I haven't compared them, but I'm pretty sure the Quake2 sourcecode is smaller. Nuff said.
but removed in the final. Dunno why, perhaps too much of the beta testers complained about that feature. When this happens to a feature at MS normally you won't see it again.:)
Not as a user. The only solution would be if MS would rewrite the complete shell layer and re-module it. The 'removal' tools for IE just remove iexplorer.exe and a couple of registry entries, but not _ALL_ components. The reason for this is that when you open explorer (thus the filemanager) you actually are looking at a webpaged view of your folder. Internet Explorer is IN the right pane. Removing it, is removing necessary parts of the shell. End of story.
I simply can't understand why you would be 'happy' when they remove IE. Users want a browser when they install windows. They get one. If they want another one, they install another one.
I also can't replace the winnt kernel with a linux kernel. Should they re-design the core system too to make that possible? I don't think so.
This whole case about 'giving the sourcecode to proof your point blabla' is showing the people who have to rule in this case don't have a clue about what they're ruling about.
In Windows2000 and Windows XP, the shell the user logs into is build around 'explorer'. The same core components that are build into this explorer are the building blocks of Internet Explorer. The renderengine itself is just a COM component, Internet explorer is more. You see this f.e. when you install Internet explorer 4 on a system that has IE3 or lower (f.e. win95). Suddenly nice shell enhancements are available for you as a developer.
Is it a great design? No. Of course not: The core shell layer should be an OS part, but any tool build on it should not extend other tools build on top of that same layer, EXCEPT when the lower layer is extended with more functionality. The system as it is now, is more the result of the wacky run for the first spot in the browser war. Now that war is over, we'll see different approaches perhaps.
The problem with this case is that it's not clearly definable what 'internet explorer' is, thus were it ends and where other tools start, because core elements ARE used in the OS shell, by other tools like the windows explorer.
Just looking at the design of the system says enough to say: "it can't be removed". You don't need sourcecode for that. If it's a great design, that's not the question.
No offence, but:
Alan Cox is one of the most influential IT innovators in the world.
Come on.. the guy does a lot of great work and all, but most influential INNOVATORS??? We're talking a Unix clone here.
No, I'm not agreeing with the fact that Bill Gates gets named as one of the great innovators of all time (yesterday). In that light, naming A. Cox one of the most influential IT innovators is a bit over the top. Sorry.
But stackguard is an option.
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You can decide not to use it:/GS is the compiler switch flag to turn it on. When I check the C++ project I worked on the last couple of days in VC++.NET, it sets the flag ON by default. (which is ok by me, it saved my already yesterday when it reported the stackframe was corrupted after a bad memset();))
Switching it OFF will turn off the stackguard functionality and you can build your code without it, but have to check buffer overflows yourself.
So it's perhaps wise to switch it ON in debug builds plus release builds that are tested, and switch it OFF in release builds that are deployed to customers.
Perhaps it's me, but if the states are not believing MS, who is suprised by that? And what influence should it have on the trial? NOTHING! It's the judge who calls for a showing of code when SHE doesn't believe Microsoft. The states can yapp all they want. If the judge doesn't think code is necessary, MS doesn't have to show 1 line of code.
It's allways nice to see a v0.0.2 version of a project that tries to port COM to Unix.
Because _THERE_ is the real challenge. Not the polypusher-code to transfer d3d calls to opengl calls. Besides the lefthand-righthand difference between OGL and D3D ofcourse.
D3D is COM based, OpenGL is plain C. Of course, COM is just a pile of C interfaces, but still, coding D3D is using binary objects with methods and properties. OpenGL is just a global canvas with global functions. I sincerely doubt this will ever succeed for 100%.
Slashdot Mirror
ACPI is needed to solve interrupt conflicts. More and more people stuff more hardware in their computers, eating up the interrupts available. That's why ACPI is needed, and that's why by default Windows2000 and Windows XP install the ACPI compliant HAL (hardware abstraction layer) for the kernel.
If you don't want this HAL, but want a different one (like the standard HAL), press during the dos part of the install of Windows 2000 or Windows XP 'F7' when you see the 'Press F6 if you need to install a third-party SCSI or RAID driver' remark at the bottom of the screen.
You can't switch HAL's between the ACPI and the standard HAL after you've installed windows 2000 or windows XP, because Windows enumerates the hardware differently with different HAL's. You have to do a complete re-install to switch hal's and after that you can manually set interrupts.
However, you can also prevent Windows2000/XP to see if there is an ACPI bios, by switching off powermanagement in the bios. This sometimes helps (it did for me on my ASUS TUSL2-C board, since I didn't want an ACPI HAL because I suspected my SBLive to misbehave due to the interrupt sharing).
Bottom line however is: the hardware should be fully compliant with the ACPI system. Most hardware is, some isn't but still has drivers on the market for Windows2000/XP. If the motherboard can't provide a good ACPI system, it's not worth your money, because then there is something seriously wrong with it.
I ment: I want a different VFS, a different VM etc. You can't change that overnight. That takes serious effort and testing to see if all applications work with the new element in the OS.
Of course I can compile different stuff into the kernel. You can do that with windows too (install different services, drivers etc). It's about replacing OS parts with other parts from 3rd parties.
I don't think so. If MS will create a system where all it takes is a set of com components that then can be used as IE is used now in XP, would Netscape adopt that scheme and create such a set of components? They don't even do that today with NS6.x. They don't even use the native windowing code of Windows to render the interface. So chances are that MS will change XP, strip IE from it, create that interface so other browsers can plug right into the system, but no browser will! Sun made a Java plugin for IE. Did you see them advertise for it so users would download it? No. I bet the majority of the XP users doesn't even know that Sun makes that plugin.
And there is the problem: the USER doesn't care. Only MS competitors, blind zealots and professional whiners care. The USER wants XP with a browser. It comes with a browser, so he/she is happy. "Oh, there are more browsertypes? Are they better? No? Why would I want to use them then?".
So ask yourself: is this really about the customer (i.e.: the USER) ? Or is this about the sour grapes of the MS competition plus their loudmouth supporters?
without serious hacking. _THAT_'s what's this is all about. Sure they can replace a lot of lines of code to make Windows XP have a true modular interface for a webbrowser component so that that webbrowser component can do the help system, be the webbrowser of the system, work inside the filemanager (explorer) and be the desktop shell.
But that will take serious time and effort. Because it's not DESIGNED that way. Like the Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel where you can't just say "I want this and that in stead of what's in it now". You have to do serious hacking and patching and TESTING, since it will make the system probably unstable.
IE is the result of the usage of a lot of system components that are used ELSEWHERE in the system also. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making statements like "[he] is telling a big, fat lie", because you don't know jack shit about system design nor developing large pieces of software.
CS is not about what kind of features are in Windows, or are in Linux or are in XINU or in SunOS. It's about HOW you can develop software to solve a problem, by investigating the WHY first. This has nothing to do with any language nor platform.
In my days at the uni we had to write parts of the XINU os. (It's a unix clone for the PC, for educational purposes). Linux was in its 0.x versions. Is Linux inspiring? No. Not at all. You know why? Because I've seen it all before, even XINU had lots of stuff that's in Linux.
Ever looked at designdocuments of the Windows XP kernel? Or the Mach kernel? There is more on this planet than Unix.
The article isn't deep or flawless, but hits on a major point: what students learn in school is key to what they go on to do.
During my CS study, the only OS that was appropriate to talk about was Unix. Mentioning Microsoft during classes was forbidden, the only exception was when you wanted to show how great Unix was. (ok, it was back in the early '90 so MS wasn't that big then).
Nowadays I don't touch Unix at all. And probably never will again in the future if the win32/.NET platforms keep on getting better plus the tools keep on getting better.
The reason for this is not that the University was crap or anything, the point about the CS study is that you learn basic things about just that, CS. Not connected to a language, an OS, a certain editor or whatever. Students of today probably all learn Java in the 'OO programming' classes. Will they all keep on developing in Java after they're graduated? I don't think so.
If a student truely did understand what was taught and what was important, he/she will choose the right tool for the job.
It's a worm spread by mail via Outlook 2000 or earlier (Outlook XP strips executables) or Outlook Express that will overwrite some .NET core components. (and only when the user is able to do that, thus has the right to overwrite the file).
.net program, it's NOT running on the .net platform and it's NOT messing around with files from managed code.
The virus is _NOT_ a
I've used CVS and VSS, plus some own made tools but these were never up to par with what other tools could offer. The mention of sourcesafe was indeed as an example. I know VSS isn't made for very large projects, even microsoft uses a different system internally afaik, but the functionality it has (i.e. the branching/merging) is IMHO what should be used in Linux development/management.
No, this is not a troll. Hear me out. This is an example how this work can be done using a good tool. I use Visual Sourcesafe here as an example, but any tool with the same functionality described below will do:
Visual Sourcesafe has the ability to merge back changes automatically in branch B from branch A when they have the same parent.
Say, you have the kernel v2.4.10. You branch off another project from it, call it v2.5.0. When you fix a bug in 2.4.11, you can merge it back into 2.5.0 without a hassle, it can be automated or you can do a visible merge when there are conflicts. The other way around also does work. So you can do this even further: branch of a prerelease 2.4.11-pre branch and a 2.4.11 branche from the 2.4.10 branch. Create fixes in 2.4.11-pre, merge them back into 2.4.11 after testing and when you're done, release 2.4.11 and get rid of 2.4.11-pre.
This is inside a versioncontrol system, you don't have to hassle around with a lot of files you have to merge by hand which will increase the risk for errors.
Of course, Visual Sourcesafe is just 'a' tool, you could use another which has the same functionality and is perhaps Open Source (I don't know of any but I'm sure others will). Doing this job by hand TODAY is erm... not understanding why we have computers in the first place. That's right: to serve mankind.
The reason for all this bufferoverflow crap is that in C, and thus also in C++, people tend to use arrays or blocks of allocated memory to represent strings. What's needed is a string datatype IN the language, like int and char. Then, the compiler can do as the CLR does: allocate the strings, even local scope ones, on the heap. This way, no buffer overflows can happen, since the type is in fact a black box, so the overflow will cause some kind of error, plus the overflow can't be used to modify the stackframe and thus the returnaddress, since the string variable isn't allocated on the stack.
In C++, there is the string class in the std lib, but it's not native to the language. (almost native ok, but not totally like in C#).
C is a language where the respect for the borders of a block of memory is in the hands of the developer. Clearly, that's too old fashioned today, since languageelements can prevent mistakes C allows developers to make.
The theme from Battlesquadron on the amiga is my all time fav. It's even more impressive when you know the composer just typed in hexnumbers in a texteditor :) I hope this site gets that tune up soon :)
I get 15 spam emails from .tw domains (not the fake addies, but the real origin) or chinese domains, on my old but still working mailaddy, DAILY, and that are slow days, sometimes I have more. They are for 100% useless to me, since I can't read/understand mandarin, nor am I living near the stores spamming me to pick up goodies they wanna sell me. If there is ONE thing I want to do is to shut out .tw domains from emailservers.
sounds really great, but i don't see it happening... nVidia, ATI, Voodoo, whomever will alway wanna do the next cool great thing and that's why the extensions are available...
As an OpenGL developer, I can truely say: Extensions SUCK ASS. I've been keeping up with extensions with my DemoGL library for some time now, but it's a battle you can't win, there is no consistency, no 1 clear API, but there are a few: nVidiaGL (with the nv extensions) and ATIGL, with the ATI(X) extensions. Oh, and some drivers support OpenGL 1.2, others support OpenGL 1.3... Yeah, nice and all. (not).
And we all know MS wants DirectX to rule them all. OpenGL works, and is an open standard by definition.
OpenGL is a standard, but not 'open'. You don't have anything to say about what OpenGL will be in the next version. The ARB does, but they also are limited, since nVidia and ATI are always ahead of them, and because what they offer in propriety extensions is _THE_ stuff to use in bleeding edge 3D graphics, using an 'older' ARB standard is not the way to go to stay ahead of the pack of competitors.
Extensions in there make life interesting certainly, but you pretty much know what you're getting into when you try NV_texture_rectangle or NV_texture_shader.
Oh, do you? What if I have an ATI radeon 8500, these extensions are not available, I have to use ATI's syntaxis. But what's worse: you have to rely on the cardmanufacturers documentation for these extensions. I don't know if you've tried to figure out how to do cubemapping and compressed textures using nVidia's docs, but it's a pain to say the least.
With DirectX, there is one clear manual, one clear API and no zillion codepaths to code to support OpenGL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, nVidia's extensions, ATI's extensions etc.
I'm a developer on win32 platforms, so perhaps I shouldn't care, but I find it irritating at best that a person who put in so much effort to give the Open Source community the stuff they wanted, is critizised as if he's the lamest n00b in the world. And why is this? Because he's one of the very FEW on Linux platforms who has realized that today's way of computing is doomed and will be taken over by a new, more distributed way. Miguel took the brave stand to decide to implement a Microsoft based technique.
Oh brother, now he's true evil...
Get a life, zealots. If Mono kills Gnome (or better: makes Gnome obsolete), why would that be something bad? If Mono lets you run the applications you need, makes you use your Linuxbox the way you want and the way you need it, would you miss Gnome? I don't think so.
Mono is a hell of a project to complete, a lot of subprojects of Mono still need completion. If you want Linux to survive in the new era of computing, stop whining and start coding.
Enough material about MS clusters to brag about.
You can whine all you want, but unless you filled in a bugreport at the MS site, it's nothing more than hot air. Supply a bugreport, give an example where it doesnt work and you'll see it fixed in an updated version. Also: the W3C 'standards' are inconsistent and odd sometimes. CSS is a nice idea, but in the long run, it has to become a definition language how to visualize data (content). HTML shouldn't have become the language to lay out webpages in, since it's not pixel oriented and still has visualization tags.
;).
The IE6 GUI is basic, yes, but it's a browser, not an IDE you live in all day. The links bar is ok, but limited if you want 20 buttons or so
The security issues are related to the fact that the design of the browser wasn't from a sandbox point of view: the sandbox is build later, but some parts have been forgotten, and are fixed as patches, the last one on feb 11th.
What makes me laugh when I see mozilla is that I simply can't understand why I should run a program that uses a nonnative gui renderer. The codebase is so huge I can't image what's in there. It's a HTML parser/renderer for crying out loud! I haven't compared them, but I'm pretty sure the Quake2 sourcecode is smaller. Nuff said.
but removed in the final. Dunno why, perhaps too much of the beta testers complained about that feature. When this happens to a feature at MS normally you won't see it again. :)
And drop the windows.net server beta. Allthough the beta is solid, it IS lacking features and code.
WinXP with it's firewall can do NAT for you. As can the RH box ofcourse, but WinXP's is easier to set up (clicking 2 boxes and a button iirc)
Not as a user. The only solution would be if MS would rewrite the complete shell layer and re-module it. The 'removal' tools for IE just remove iexplorer.exe and a couple of registry entries, but not _ALL_ components. The reason for this is that when you open explorer (thus the filemanager) you actually are looking at a webpaged view of your folder. Internet Explorer is IN the right pane. Removing it, is removing necessary parts of the shell. End of story.
I simply can't understand why you would be 'happy' when they remove IE. Users want a browser when they install windows. They get one. If they want another one, they install another one.
I also can't replace the winnt kernel with a linux kernel. Should they re-design the core system too to make that possible? I don't think so.
Nowadays, IE is a 'windows upgrade'. IE6 for example is an update to win2k, an update of the OS, not a 'tool' you install like word.
This whole case about 'giving the sourcecode to proof your point blabla' is showing the people who have to rule in this case don't have a clue about what they're ruling about.
In Windows2000 and Windows XP, the shell the user logs into is build around 'explorer'. The same core components that are build into this explorer are the building blocks of Internet Explorer. The renderengine itself is just a COM component, Internet explorer is more. You see this f.e. when you install Internet explorer 4 on a system that has IE3 or lower (f.e. win95). Suddenly nice shell enhancements are available for you as a developer.
Is it a great design? No. Of course not: The core shell layer should be an OS part, but any tool build on it should not extend other tools build on top of that same layer, EXCEPT when the lower layer is extended with more functionality. The system as it is now, is more the result of the wacky run for the first spot in the browser war. Now that war is over, we'll see different approaches perhaps.
The problem with this case is that it's not clearly definable what 'internet explorer' is, thus were it ends and where other tools start, because core elements ARE used in the OS shell, by other tools like the windows explorer.
Just looking at the design of the system says enough to say: "it can't be removed". You don't need sourcecode for that. If it's a great design, that's not the question.
No offence, but:
Alan Cox is one of the most influential IT innovators in the world.
Come on.. the guy does a lot of great work and all, but most influential INNOVATORS??? We're talking a Unix clone here.
No, I'm not agreeing with the fact that Bill Gates gets named as one of the great innovators of all time (yesterday). In that light, naming A. Cox one of the most influential IT innovators is a bit over the top. Sorry.
You can decide not to use it: /GS is the compiler switch flag to turn it on. When I check the C++ project I worked on the last couple of days in VC++.NET, it sets the flag ON by default. (which is ok by me, it saved my already yesterday when it reported the stackframe was corrupted after a bad memset() ;))
Switching it OFF will turn off the stackguard functionality and you can build your code without it, but have to check buffer overflows yourself.
So it's perhaps wise to switch it ON in debug builds plus release builds that are tested, and switch it OFF in release builds that are deployed to customers.
Perhaps it's me, but if the states are not believing MS, who is suprised by that? And what influence should it have on the trial? NOTHING! It's the judge who calls for a showing of code when SHE doesn't believe Microsoft. The states can yapp all they want. If the judge doesn't think code is necessary, MS doesn't have to show 1 line of code.
It's allways nice to see a v0.0.2 version of a project that tries to port COM to Unix.
Because _THERE_ is the real challenge. Not the polypusher-code to transfer d3d calls to opengl calls. Besides the lefthand-righthand difference between OGL and D3D ofcourse.
D3D is COM based, OpenGL is plain C. Of course, COM is just a pile of C interfaces, but still, coding D3D is using binary objects with methods and properties. OpenGL is just a global canvas with global functions. I sincerely doubt this will ever succeed for 100%.