Same with frames, or even pictures. Mosaic first couldn't display background pictures. Frames was another netscape invention that was accepted by almost everyone, but was left out the HTML standard for YEARS.
Blocking out people with IE just because you can't stand the fact that the maker of that browser blocks some crappy browser that is used by 1% of the internet population is not really making a statement other than saying "I'm stupid and by doing this I again show that to you all".
Not to be rude or anything, but the owner of a website can decide at ANY TIME who will get access to which data, not Tim. If a certain company wants to lock out parts of its websites for certain individuals, that's their choice and their responsibility. If you don't have a contract of some sort (like you've paid money to get access to that website) you're out of luck. Tim can jump high and low, but that's reality and he can't do anything about that, nor should he be able to.
If a company wants to exclude certain individuals from its websites for some reason, less visitors will visit the website. In the case of MSN, that can be a disadvantage at best, since competing sites like Yahoo offer the same information.
On a personal note: Tim invented a nice hypertext system, but that's about it. For the rest his views are rather 'unpragmatic' to say the least.
Ok ok ok ok OK!! it's a MS funded site, nevertheless, the code is available and you can judge for yourself: should you stick with Sun and their J2EE or should you prefer.NET with f.e. C# ? According to this test (the J2EE petshop example) the choice is a no-brainer.
Seems like win32 netscapes work ok on www.msn.com. Does 6.1 on other platforms work too or not?
Anyway: if you don't like it that www.msn.com blocks you, visit www.yahoo.com, same stuff, different url. Microsoft then gets less hits, less adds, less money etc, you get the point. That's what a lot of people here want, don't they? so why the whining?
Dunno, just tried on win2k pro sp2 with netscape 4.73: http://www.msn.com, and no errors, just the page as it is on my IE6. This netscape install is identifying itself as netscape, no proxy is altering the ID string.
It's their website, so they're fully entitled to shut out/block whatever they please. Also, the website is free, you don't pay for it, nor does it hold vital information, for example government information etc. If your favorite pub suddenly has a new doorpolicy and you are not welcome anymore since you don't wear a rolex watch, you can get mad, but that's about all you can do.
It has 64bit support, just because Intel thought it would be great to put it in, but the MAIN point about the Itanium is the EPIC instruction set: move back to simple RISC like instructions and let the compiler do all the math about branchprediction etc etc. F.e.: when you have a program compiled with a good EPIC compiler, you'll have 8 instructions executed PER CLOCK, thus in theory running your program on 8 CPU's at once. It's 64bit too, but that's just a 'nice feature', not the main issue.
Then looking at the hammer: AMD offers 64bit as its main new feature, but keeping the fat x86 instructionset. Nice, but not a product that will survive for at least 10 years from now, resulting in a quick set of bucks fast, but a slow death in the long run...
What conclusion will the article have? "Windows XP is THE os everyone should install" ? haha...
Having Linuxworld reporting about what the strong points of Windows are against Linux is like having Microsoft publishing a non-flawed article about how good Novell Netware is compared to Windows2000 Server.
Try to do envmapping using OpenGL generated texture coords, on an ATi Radeon card with ATi Radeon drivers... looks awful huh? Now switch on a light by calling glEnable(GL_LIGHTING) and glEnable(GL_LIGHT0). Et voila! the envmapping works!
This is about basic OpenGL 1.0 behaviour that is not working correctly in ATi's drivers and is NOT FIXED because they don't have to: Quake2/3 look ok on ATi Radeon cards, so why bother fixing it?
Other crap: specify too less elements when calling glDrawElements() -> POOF your box just died.
If you have your own server with the.net runtime, you don't need to pay this fee, since you don't use the My Services service. If you want to store your service at their site, or/and you want to use their services, thus build f.e. a shell around the functionality they provide, you have to pay for the usage of these services, like you have to pay for the cable TV services you get.
Alternatively, other companies will be providing the same services for perhaps less or free. All you really need is a.NET runtime and VS.net. So stop crying this fee is for building.net applications.
I don't get it: if you're looking for opposing views on Open Source, why should a person's Microsoft-fansite be of any interest to you? True, Microsoft have said negative things about the GPL, but not about 'Open Source'. Open Source!=GPL.
If you're looking for opposing views on Open Source, first define what 'Open Source' means to you: is it just what it says: 'Open' up the 'Source', or is it more: a political view wrapped in a software philosophy: GPL. After you've defined what Open Source is for you, you can search for opposing views on THAT definition of 'Open Source'.
Microsoft got the top spots in the TPC-C transaction performance benchmark by using clusters of SQLserver2000. The feature that makes it worth using these clusters is 'partitioned views', which is something like: having a view on a set of data that is retrieved from more than 1 machine, i.e. what you want.
If you want to compare to Windows: up till Windows XP it wasn't even possible to be logged in as multiple users at the same time, so the equivalent of a local root exploit was not really possible.
Errr? Terminal server? Telnet? Stuff available since NT4. Which is already phased out. Bashing is fine, as long as it is done by the facts, not by made up poop.
Most developers use foreign key constraints during development, to test if the code they've written is correct. In production environments, often the foreign key constraints are removed. It's an old discussion if this is a good practice or not. Personally I use stored procedures to provide an API to the data, and my experience is that foreign key constraints are a pain in the ass, because testing is a hell, you can't just remove records since the constraints will stop you. Others disagree on this. IMHO it's however not correct to call it a 'terrible suggestion', to rely the integrity of the data on the interface of the data, since the data in the tables will be inserted through that interface. (and if your set of constraints aren't perfect, your data is garbage;)). For testing purposes, you need foreign key constraints though.
I can understand the firewall replacement (Proxy server -> linux based system), but replacing sourcesafe with CVS? True, over the internet the plain sourcesafe solution isn't up to par, but the integration in visual studio is seemless, it works very ok and dont get me even started about wincvs... CVS is a good versioning system, but when it comes to useability... it's hopeless.
There are a couple of solutions for using visual sourcesafe over the internet though, fast and reliable, with all the benefits of VSS: integration in visual studio's tools and visual browsing of the database. Two things CVS will not bring you.
It's about component based development...
on
J#
·
· Score: 2
that's the bottom line. get a component's instance, set some properties, call its methods, get results, destroy/release the component's instance. From a developer's point of view, you don't care HOW that component is developed, with which language etc, just that it should do what it supposed to do when you call a method. The OP wonders what's the big difference between COM/COM+ and the CLR's model of component based development. YOU are wondering if component based development is better or not. That's not at stake here. Some say it is, some say it isn't (f.e. the extreme programming people). When you go for component based development, the CLR has the advantage over COM/COM+ that you can step right into the code WHEN IT FAILS. this is an advantage and CAN gain you time. If you don't see the advantages of component based development, you will never see the advantages of COM/COM+ and the CLR.
...when you take debuggingtimes :)
on
J#
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
when a team develops a product, you'll have different aspects of functionality implemented, by different kinds of people (both on skillset and on interest). When these people are offered to make it possible to develop in the language they like, it's an advantage, and because component based development is a way to speed up devtimes, it's a plus that people can choose the language they like. However, in the COM/COM+ world, others can't debug your code. (VB-VBCom components, ok, but with different languages, that's a problem). When they CAN step into your code, they can pinpoint to the errorous lines or blocks of code that could be wrong, directly. This adds another speed gain over COM/COM+ development.
Component based development is all about not caring which language the component is written in. Therefor in theory the language is not important. For debugging, it can be helpful. the CLR provides you that helpful tool.
(sorry for the separate message, but if I put this text in the other message I replied, Slash will time out. Please fix this)
Also, you don't have to register your components anymore. With COM/COM+ components, you have to register them in the registry. This is not a problem, but updating registered components is. In n-tier webapps, where the webserver has loaded the components in its core process (or separate process, if you've tuned it that way), you can't overwrite the dll and re-register the new components, because the dll is locked (which makes sense). Witb the CLR, just dump the dll in the dir and off you go. Updated the dll? overwrite it. The CLR will automatically see that the file is updated, and reload the components into memory.
It's about debugging.
on
J#
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ok, with COM and COM+, you could f.e. use a component written in C++ in VB or vice versa. However, when you're debugging your VB application and the error you receive is inside that C++ component, you're out of luck. (You can, in a way, compiled VB stuff in VC++, but it's a nightmare). With the CLR, you're not. You can step into that C++ component directly from your VB code. And if that C++ component uses a serie of C# components, no problem there.
The main advantage is here: development is faster in a team where every programmer can use the language he/she likes the most. Even if you're not familiar with C++ in the example above, you can pinpoint the developer who wrote the component that in line xyz his code bugs when you supply it the parameters your VB application passed to it. File the bug your bugtracker system et viola. The C++ developer can even use your VB application to debug his own code, without having to write a testapp in C++ that will supply EXACTLY the same inputparameters.
With COM and COM+ you don't have that.
I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a commission first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same commission? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the EC and EU, rule on this, instead of the EC and/or EU?
Also, how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?
(mind you: next time these clueless morons are sueing a linux related company over what they think shouldn't be happening while they don't understand one single bit (pun intended))
When Ballmer visited The Netherlands a couple of months ago, he said after being asked which Microsoft-software product was the biggest and most important one: "Visual Studio.net. It's bigger in codebase than all windows versions together. It's also the most important product for us for the coming future.". Hard to believe the codebase size comment though, but it underscribes nevertheless the realness of VS.net. Microsoft understands very clearly that the one thing needed for a succesful.NET is a large, succesful group of developers. The only way to attrackt developers is to provide the best dev-environment on the planet, and looking at Beta2 of VS.net, I think they'll succeed.
I mean, the USA != the world. If the NSA does something, or decides something, why should I find that a good thing? The NSA is an agency of a country where I don't live in, which has another system in place that spies on our economy (Echelon). Why on earth should I trust the NSA?
ps: no, I'm not happy about the NSA approved keys in windows either, allthough these are not usable to enter a system.
You got me there. I didn't think long enough (hell I even released lotsa software under BSD license aaaaaarg *kicks teeth with foot*)
The second restriction (the binary has to (re)produce the copyright clause) is probably worse than you might think however. But perhaps that will be done via the normal ways.
I'm though pretty sure the violator here has read the comments on the license. Who is blindly removing lines?:) The BSD license has however the reputation that a programmer can grab the code and do whatever he wants with it. That's not true. This case is a good proof of that:(
unless it's relicensed. When it's included 'as is', thus WITH the BSD license, it's linked to GPL-ed code, therefor it has to be GPL-ed too. But it's BSD-licensed, not GPL-ed. If the original author denies to release it under the GPL, the Linux programmers have to program a new piece of code and release THAT under the GPL.
Open Source is great, but the politics will kill it.
There is hardware. That hardware is owned by your targetgroup. That targetgroup will buy/use your application. What do you do? That's right! You use the API that will make the targetgroup able to run your application on the hardware they own. Does the targetgroup care which api, which dll's, which 3d object format etc you use? No. They probably don't even know what a 'vertex' is.
So if you have to use OpenGL, use OpenGL. If you have to use D3D, use D3D. Being productive, THAT's the key here. Not the emotional connection with any API. Save the emotions for a hobbyproject.
Slashdot Mirror
Same with frames, or even pictures. Mosaic first couldn't display background pictures. Frames was another netscape invention that was accepted by almost everyone, but was left out the HTML standard for YEARS.
Blocking out people with IE just because you can't stand the fact that the maker of that browser blocks some crappy browser that is used by 1% of the internet population is not really making a statement other than saying "I'm stupid and by doing this I again show that to you all".
Not to be rude or anything, but the owner of a website can decide at ANY TIME who will get access to which data, not Tim. If a certain company wants to lock out parts of its websites for certain individuals, that's their choice and their responsibility. If you don't have a contract of some sort (like you've paid money to get access to that website) you're out of luck. Tim can jump high and low, but that's reality and he can't do anything about that, nor should he be able to.
If a company wants to exclude certain individuals from its websites for some reason, less visitors will visit the website. In the case of MSN, that can be a disadvantage at best, since competing sites like Yahoo offer the same information.
On a personal note: Tim invented a nice hypertext system, but that's about it. For the rest his views are rather 'unpragmatic' to say the least.
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/petshop.aspx
.NET with f.e. C# ? According to this test (the J2EE petshop example) the choice is a no-brainer.
Ok ok ok ok OK!! it's a MS funded site, nevertheless, the code is available and you can judge for yourself: should you stick with Sun and their J2EE or should you prefer
Seems like win32 netscapes work ok on www.msn.com. Does 6.1 on other platforms work too or not?
Anyway: if you don't like it that www.msn.com blocks you, visit www.yahoo.com, same stuff, different url. Microsoft then gets less hits, less adds, less money etc, you get the point. That's what a lot of people here want, don't they? so why the whining?
Dunno, just tried on win2k pro sp2 with netscape 4.73: http://www.msn.com, and no errors, just the page as it is on my IE6. This netscape install is identifying itself as netscape, no proxy is altering the ID string.
Weird... anyone else has the same results?
It's their website, so they're fully entitled to shut out /block whatever they please. Also, the website is free, you don't pay for it, nor does it hold vital information, for example government information etc. If your favorite pub suddenly has a new doorpolicy and you are not welcome anymore since you don't wear a rolex watch, you can get mad, but that's about all you can do.
It has 64bit support, just because Intel thought it would be great to put it in, but the MAIN point about the Itanium is the EPIC instruction set: move back to simple RISC like instructions and let the compiler do all the math about branchprediction etc etc. F.e.: when you have a program compiled with a good EPIC compiler, you'll have 8 instructions executed PER CLOCK, thus in theory running your program on 8 CPU's at once. It's 64bit too, but that's just a 'nice feature', not the main issue.
Then looking at the hammer: AMD offers 64bit as its main new feature, but keeping the fat x86 instructionset. Nice, but not a product that will survive for at least 10 years from now, resulting in a quick set of bucks fast, but a slow death in the long run...
What conclusion will the article have? "Windows XP is THE os everyone should install" ? haha...
Having Linuxworld reporting about what the strong points of Windows are against Linux is like having Microsoft publishing a non-flawed article about how good Novell Netware is compared to Windows2000 Server.
Try to do envmapping using OpenGL generated texture coords, on an ATi Radeon card with ATi Radeon drivers... looks awful huh? Now switch on a light by calling glEnable(GL_LIGHTING) and glEnable(GL_LIGHT0). Et voila! the envmapping works!
This is about basic OpenGL 1.0 behaviour that is not working correctly in ATi's drivers and is NOT FIXED because they don't have to: Quake2/3 look ok on ATi Radeon cards, so why bother fixing it?
Other crap: specify too less elements when calling glDrawElements() -> POOF your box just died.
If you have your own server with the .net runtime, you don't need to pay this fee, since you don't use the My Services service. If you want to store your service at their site, or/and you want to use their services, thus build f.e. a shell around the functionality they provide, you have to pay for the usage of these services, like you have to pay for the cable TV services you get.
.NET runtime and VS.net. So stop crying this fee is for building .net applications.
Alternatively, other companies will be providing the same services for perhaps less or free. All you really need is a
I don't get it: if you're looking for opposing views on Open Source, why should a person's Microsoft-fansite be of any interest to you? True, Microsoft have said negative things about the GPL, but not about 'Open Source'. Open Source!=GPL.
If you're looking for opposing views on Open Source, first define what 'Open Source' means to you: is it just what it says: 'Open' up the 'Source', or is it more: a political view wrapped in a software philosophy: GPL. After you've defined what Open Source is for you, you can search for opposing views on THAT definition of 'Open Source'.
Microsoft got the top spots in the TPC-C transaction performance benchmark by using clusters of SQLserver2000. The feature that makes it worth using these clusters is 'partitioned views', which is something like: having a view on a set of data that is retrieved from more than 1 machine, i.e. what you want.
Errr? Terminal server? Telnet? Stuff available since NT4. Which is already phased out. Bashing is fine, as long as it is done by the facts, not by made up poop.
Most developers use foreign key constraints during development, to test if the code they've written is correct. In production environments, often the foreign key constraints are removed. It's an old discussion if this is a good practice or not. Personally I use stored procedures to provide an API to the data, and my experience is that foreign key constraints are a pain in the ass, because testing is a hell, you can't just remove records since the constraints will stop you. Others disagree on this. IMHO it's however not correct to call it a 'terrible suggestion', to rely the integrity of the data on the interface of the data, since the data in the tables will be inserted through that interface. (and if your set of constraints aren't perfect, your data is garbage ;)). For testing purposes, you need foreign key constraints though.
I can understand the firewall replacement (Proxy server -> linux based system), but replacing sourcesafe with CVS? True, over the internet the plain sourcesafe solution isn't up to par, but the integration in visual studio is seemless, it works very ok and dont get me even started about wincvs... CVS is a good versioning system, but when it comes to useability... it's hopeless.
There are a couple of solutions for using visual sourcesafe over the internet though, fast and reliable, with all the benefits of VSS: integration in visual studio's tools and visual browsing of the database. Two things CVS will not bring you.
that's the bottom line. get a component's instance, set some properties, call its methods, get results, destroy/release the component's instance. From a developer's point of view, you don't care HOW that component is developed, with which language etc, just that it should do what it supposed to do when you call a method. The OP wonders what's the big difference between COM/COM+ and the CLR's model of component based development. YOU are wondering if component based development is better or not. That's not at stake here. Some say it is, some say it isn't (f.e. the extreme programming people). When you go for component based development, the CLR has the advantage over COM/COM+ that you can step right into the code WHEN IT FAILS. this is an advantage and CAN gain you time. If you don't see the advantages of component based development, you will never see the advantages of COM/COM+ and the CLR.
when a team develops a product, you'll have different aspects of functionality implemented, by different kinds of people (both on skillset and on interest). When these people are offered to make it possible to develop in the language they like, it's an advantage, and because component based development is a way to speed up devtimes, it's a plus that people can choose the language they like. However, in the COM/COM+ world, others can't debug your code. (VB-VBCom components, ok, but with different languages, that's a problem). When they CAN step into your code, they can pinpoint to the errorous lines or blocks of code that could be wrong, directly. This adds another speed gain over COM/COM+ development.
Component based development is all about not caring which language the component is written in. Therefor in theory the language is not important. For debugging, it can be helpful. the CLR provides you that helpful tool.
(sorry for the separate message, but if I put this text in the other message I replied, Slash will time out. Please fix this)
Also, you don't have to register your components anymore. With COM/COM+ components, you have to register them in the registry. This is not a problem, but updating registered components is. In n-tier webapps, where the webserver has loaded the components in its core process (or separate process, if you've tuned it that way), you can't overwrite the dll and re-register the new components, because the dll is locked (which makes sense). Witb the CLR, just dump the dll in the dir and off you go. Updated the dll? overwrite it. The CLR will automatically see that the file is updated, and reload the components into memory.
Ok, with COM and COM+, you could f.e. use a component written in C++ in VB or vice versa. However, when you're debugging your VB application and the error you receive is inside that C++ component, you're out of luck. (You can, in a way, compiled VB stuff in VC++, but it's a nightmare). With the CLR, you're not. You can step into that C++ component directly from your VB code. And if that C++ component uses a serie of C# components, no problem there.
The main advantage is here: development is faster in a team where every programmer can use the language he/she likes the most. Even if you're not familiar with C++ in the example above, you can pinpoint the developer who wrote the component that in line xyz his code bugs when you supply it the parameters your VB application passed to it. File the bug your bugtracker system et viola. The C++ developer can even use your VB application to debug his own code, without having to write a testapp in C++ that will supply EXACTLY the same inputparameters.
With COM and COM+ you don't have that.
I don't know this for sure, since IANAL, but how can a commission first make its own laws and then by these own laws sue a company to pay a fine to that same commission? Isn't that odd? Shouldn't an independent judge, that is: independent of the EC and EU, rule on this, instead of the EC and/or EU?
Also, how on earth can windows media player be the KEY feature so Sun (the major complaining company in this case) sells less servers... Does the EU have any person on board with a clue or not?
(mind you: next time these clueless morons are sueing a linux related company over what they think shouldn't be happening while they don't understand one single bit (pun intended))
When Ballmer visited The Netherlands a couple of months ago, he said after being asked which Microsoft-software product was the biggest and most important one: "Visual Studio.net. It's bigger in codebase than all windows versions together. It's also the most important product for us for the coming future.". Hard to believe the codebase size comment though, but it underscribes nevertheless the realness of VS.net. Microsoft understands very clearly that the one thing needed for a succesful .NET is a large, succesful group of developers. The only way to attrackt developers is to provide the best dev-environment on the planet, and looking at Beta2 of VS.net, I think they'll succeed.
I mean, the USA != the world. If the NSA does something, or decides something, why should I find that a good thing? The NSA is an agency of a country where I don't live in, which has another system in place that spies on our economy (Echelon). Why on earth should I trust the NSA?
ps: no, I'm not happy about the NSA approved keys in windows either, allthough these are not usable to enter a system.
You got me there. I didn't think long enough (hell I even released lotsa software under BSD license aaaaaarg *kicks teeth with foot*)
:) The BSD license has however the reputation that a programmer can grab the code and do whatever he wants with it. That's not true. This case is a good proof of that :(
The second restriction (the binary has to (re)produce the copyright clause) is probably worse than you might think however. But perhaps that will be done via the normal ways.
I'm though pretty sure the violator here has read the comments on the license. Who is blindly removing lines?
unless it's relicensed. When it's included 'as is', thus WITH the BSD license, it's linked to GPL-ed code, therefor it has to be GPL-ed too. But it's BSD-licensed, not GPL-ed. If the original author denies to release it under the GPL, the Linux programmers have to program a new piece of code and release THAT under the GPL.
Open Source is great, but the politics will kill it.
There is hardware. That hardware is owned by your targetgroup. That targetgroup will buy/use your application. What do you do? That's right! You use the API that will make the targetgroup able to run your application on the hardware they own. Does the targetgroup care which api, which dll's, which 3d object format etc you use? No. They probably don't even know what a 'vertex' is.
So if you have to use OpenGL, use OpenGL. If you have to use D3D, use D3D. Being productive, THAT's the key here. Not the emotional connection with any API. Save the emotions for a hobbyproject.