OK, MS should kick out all the office/outlook express developers and hire new ones. But... why do I have to read about an exploit in a MS product on the main page, while there are zillion other exploits in other programs as well but these are NOT mentioned on the front page? I can understand you all can drink Bill Gates' blood for breakfast but please, keep the news informative. If people want to read rants about MS bugs they'll visit zdnet or bugtraq. I don't see why this is nerd/geek or crap that matters' related. It's pure ranting and raving. And after all these years, you still don't understand that whining about the lack of good programming on 'the enemies (enemy? like in a war?) side', doesn't help your own good, it doesn't make your own side's code better.
(the only purpose for this non-informative crapnews I can think of is: it must be a hint for a new conversation at the coffeemachine, when that nice blond from Marketing is at the coffeemachine at the same time as you do:)).
1) Sun bought Staroffice for 30milj$. 2) Sun added 4 times the developers to the project 3) After releasing the product for free for noncommercial usage, it's now totally free by releasing the sourcecode (however, how will they release the NDA-ed protected parts of the application???)
Adding this up... where's the catch? Sun is a commercial company only in the business for the money. Releasing the sourcecode is to me equal as throwing away the 30milj$. Pretty much if you ask me.
so.. where's the catch? why will this bring Sun extra $$ instead of costing only $$$ (as it does now, with truckloads!) --
The code is perhaps great and it's cool to be able to peek into it and get ideas from. However, for the end user, the majority of people who actually use the product, it's totally irrelevant. It doesn't add anything to the user experience for these people, staroffice IS already free.
Furthermore: why would Sun open up the code? not just to play nice. To me it sounds like the development of Staroffice takes TOO MUCH money to continue. So opening up the source is a logical business step and doesnt have to mean it will DIE or being abandoned. They're just looking for cheap programmers (namely the OSS programmers, who don't cost a single DIME)
As some stated in this thread: if there won't be a strong project management, it will suffer. Let's hope that will be in place when the source is opened up (so direction of future development, designgoals etc are set by a team so it won't suffer from the lack of it as in most OSS projects)
I'm looking forward to have a look into the code. It would be a great learning experience for for example students of C.S., for example how to build a decent spreadsheet or wordprocessor.:) --
nope incorrect. If you run your webapplication in a separate process (via the setting in the webapp properties), IIS will spawn a new process for the webapp and that process will attach to the asp dll like a new process, thus the calls to the asp dll will be done INSIDE the new process. So the webapp PLUS the ASP is running OUTSIDE IIS and INSIDE it's own process. (IIS3 didn't have that, IIS4 had this already). This is handy when you use DLL's with comobjects in MTS, so you run the objects OUT of process of IIS and INprocess of the webapp, completely sealed off, so if your comobject crashes, and the webapp crashes, IIS won't go down with it.
IIS4 can already do this. (run your website in a separate process, 1 click in the property sheet). The author of the article didn't have that much knowledge of the stuff he talks about aparantly.:)
Even MS (now!) admits that VB is only object based
MS ships the MSDN with VB. In that large library there are several books in digital format. some are about VB. All these books say it's object based. The VB docs state that too (they never mention Object oriented once). But frankly, there are some holy wars started years ago about C++ not being truely OO etc, it's a definition thing I guess:)
Object oriented development in VB.NET
A good example for the OO definition miscommunication:) If you program with binary objects like COM objects in a SOAP environment, for example the multi platform as shown in MS example The hanson brothers (good read: com and corba on win2k and solaris), you are busy with Object oriented programming, however not with details like object overloading. You ARE programming with objects. I think that's the main miscommunication here: it's not smalltalk OO definition, it's semantically OO: use objects to build your application, and the glue between these objects is your code, in whatever scriptlanguage (or program language) you want to write it in.
The fuzz about C# is a bit weird to me. There are literaly thousands of programlanguages, every language serving a special case. C# is one of them. So what! if it does a better job than java then so be it! It's fine by me: I can then use a language that fits better to the job than the other languages available.:) --
Most people program in VB, it's perhaps shocking news, but true.
And then what? it's not about which language gets the most popular. It's the ATTITUDE towards using languages: use the language that makes you develop the best result. If VB is more appropriate, use VB, if Perl is more appropriate don't use VB or C, use Perl.
It's easy. I think a good developer shouldn't give a rat's ass about which language gets the next 'the most popular language'-award. It's useless. --
Newsflash: They are not your enemy. THey spent 2billion dollars a year on research. that has to result in something good, plus in some environments their products are better than other products. Choose the tool that fits the job, don't change the job to fit the tool
It's also sad that the majority here who tends to post articles OR replies won't bother to look into what.NET is all about and when there is something useful to adopt and include in Open Source projects. The majority focusses on DETAILS like the C# vs Java thing (both proprietry languages designed by 1 company. what's the difference?) or fud that MS isn't capable of cooking up such an environment.
I don't care if this gets moderated down because some anti-microsoft moderator hates what I write here, but I have to say it: Microsoft releases a LOT OF sourcecode, free for all.: The duwamish bookstore, a complete e-commerce application ready to roll (a complete online store), with code, docs etc. numerous examples, tutorials and docs.
I developed a lot in java but I'm very willing to swap to C# once it's there. Why? because the tradition of well done documentation (not generated CRAP like Sun gives us), lots of examples and full applications, complete in sourcecode will be extended when.NET is fully released.
You should try it sometimes. You can benefit from it. Instead of bashing it, you could do what made MS big and Japan's economy the world leader: adapt and extend.... Open your eyes. It will do good:) --
1) Michael Abrash (you know... quake bsp code!) works for MS, and works on the XBox dx implementation 2) nVidia will provide a full OpenGL ICD for the XBox. (as stated in numerous newsitems). Therefor: it's totally logical that Carmack is an advisor for the XBox, because he is advisor for several OpenGL Driver implementators. He knows what's needed to get performance on the thing. 3) So what! Just because it's a microsoft product doesn't it make bad. When it's from Sony it's cool but from MS it's bad? What do you want then... a bag of parts and elements and a manual to solder, fiddle and build the thing yourself ? (plus write the 3D api layer yourself, because all you have is a chipset layout). Sometimes stuff that just comes out of a box and works directly is pretty ok:) Try it.:) --
perhaps they've removed it because the tests were done using a BETA version of SQLserver 2000. All software used in the tests currently on the list are released versions. --
O man... this is so damn funny. 2 days ago every single Zealot falls over the other crying Win2k is 3 times slower than Linux, today the same 'advocates' can't stop talking and whining about how another particular benchmark is CRAP because it doesn't state what they WANT it to state.
Am I allowed to laugh about this?:)
If we just give the advocates/zealots/other craptalking people a separate forum, we can then go on with talking about Stuff That Matters(tm) over HERE. Thank you. --
If you want a VC to invest in your project, you have to convince that VC that the project will turn into a profitable project so the VC can earn his money back plus extra. Otherwise, why would a VC invest in the project? Unless it's a filantrope of course.;) --
I didn't say it was good, I only mentioned it was free:) ofcourse you can't expect it's top notch when it emulates sqlserver but at the same time it isn't. I never tried it, perhaps it's ok. --
Microsoft's MSDE is also a total free database. it's a database engine that acts like SQLserver and ment for developers, but you can run it as a database for normal usage, and avoid evil access databases. --
That's the main reason. VB has it, but it's suffering from its ease of use because it lacks some options C++ brings to the table (free threading, re-usage of object by multiple threads of multiple processes etc). C++ will do, but you need an extreme amount of macro's to get decent COM support in your program. If you know them, it's easy. if you don't it's hell on earth. Native COM support in a language with C++ speed and VB ease of use is the dream of every COM developer. That language was already there: Java by MS (J++ 6.0). Sun killed it with a lawsuite. So MS needed another language to fill that gap. That's now released: C#.
A must have for unix developers? Only for people using COM objects on Win32 servers perhaps. The rest of the Unix world can move on, walk by, and get on with their lives. It's not necessary to work with EVERY language! Visual Studio contains: Foxpro, VBscript, Jscript, VB, VC++ and Java. Now a new language is added: C#. Big deal. Programming in Perl is not a common thing on win32 platforms, more VBscript is used. So what. Code the program->get the job done->next issue.
So, if you think of COM as in 'a root domain', forget this language:) you won't touch it. If you work with COM on a daily basis: it's for you. And you will be happy it's finally there. There is no need for mudthrowing. That is only a hint of not understanding what it's all about. --
Do you all kiss Kernighan & Ritchie's C book before you take breakfast? I did. years ago. Before I found out that a language to program in is just a tool to get things done.
After a while I found out that it's better to find a language that fits the job you need it for than to struggle on with just 1 language you think is superior. It's not. At least not in all cases.
So, concluding: This language will be handy in some circumstances, for example for writing COM objects and you don't want to memorize 100010012343242 C++ macro's and you don't want apartmentthreaded VB objects. In other circumstances other languages are more handy. Deal with it, it's reality. Just bashing this language to death is the most stupid thing to do. Even if it's a total 1:1 copy of java's syntax it's a heaven's gift. You know why? because World Leader Sun doesn't allow people to write COM objects in Java. That's why.
For linux/unix oriented people this language isn't of much use I'm afraid. That's ok. in win32 land, perl is of no use. So what. Use the freaking tool you need to get your job done and move on to the next eager waitin' job to get finished. IMHO much more important than mumbling about a language you probably will never use. --
The upside is that not all hardware designs are exactly in line with DX8, and some usefull and interesting features exist that DX8 doesn't expose. It is looking like several hardware vendors are making moves to expose ALL of their functionality through OpenGL extensions to be available when the product ships, rather than at the next DX cycle.
To which features are you refering? When I look at the specs for the vertex and pixel shaders for d3d 8, I can't imagine what kind of 'revolutionairy' feature won't be able to build with that. Sure, perhaps hardware voxels or NURBS tessalation in hw is an option that is not included, but are these features already announced by vendors? most cards are hardly able to render the shaders in hardware, do T&L etc. When the majority of consumers are using hardware that is able to do all that, we will be a year from now, and D3D 9 will be at the horizon.
Still liked your shader implementation a lot though:) cheers.
OpenGL's standard is evolving extremely slow. Almost all vendors are implementing their new features as extensions. Extensions are flexible, but also hard to use, especially when there is no 'official support' in the driver. This is hard because when you want to have a certain effect in your application, and you need an extension for that, you HAVE TO code an alternative codepath for the people who have a different card with no support for that extension. (crashing crappy coded multitexturing programs on a G200 is a good example)
D3D on the other hand always supplies you with a software emulation for a certain feature. Besides that, MS picks up new features very quickly and for example with the D3D 8, now in betatesting, D3D will have more features than OpenGL.
I'm an OpenGL programmer, I love the api, but please, don't drag the old OpenGL vs D3D debate into this thread. There is no 'BETTER' or 'WORSE'. There is just: 'this api works on windows' and 'this api works on more than just windows'. Take your pick. --
I can understand your feelings when someone mentions sqlserver 6.5:) However since the day I moved to 7.0 everything suddenly looked more colorful, the sun seemed to shine more often etc. It makes your day:)
The top vendors in the database world have all a product that has 90% of its functionality in common with the competition. 10% of it's features are unique. Oracle has more features than sqlserver, but mostly you don't need 'em or you can work around the lack of it. This works vice versa ofcourse. If you need a feature that's unique for oracle, you shouldn't use sqlserver. if you need handy stuff in sqlserver that's not in oracle or it's tools, avoid oracle.
Too many people however don't understand this and go for the 'well known product' while they'd better look out for the best fit for their needs. --
why should I use service manager? I telnet to the server, type pslist to get the pid, type kill pid and it's gone. I type net start servicename to start the service again. (I can also net stop servicename ofcourse;) pslist is downloadable from sysinternals.com
It takes some time to collect the handy tools you need, but then it's not hard to do whatever you want.:) --
It's simple. If you want to develop an application for the Linux market, use Linux. If you want to develop an application for the win32 market, use win32. Why is this so difficult? The last time I developed on Linux it was to port a geometry compiler to SGI from win32. Simple: Linux was a good intermediate platform because it's UNIX behaviour was the thing I needed to test the stuff.
If you don't care which platform to choose and what your audience is using, it's up to your personal requirments. All other arguments are advocacy material. I can ramble along for hours what the advantages of development on win32 are above development on Linux. So can others about the advantages of linux development above win32 development. Hell, I think even some Mac user can join in and ramble with us:). --
:) it's in the resourcekit. Or you can code it yourself with little amount of lines of code. It's very handy. Also, bringing the taskmanager up with cntrl-shift-esc saves some serious trouble. --
Protocol as in 'how to write a binary object so that it can work in a component world'.:) not networking related.. no. DCOM isn't bad. The first DCOM drafts were not erm... good, but today it's extremely flexible.
And COM can't talk outside the box? since when is that? If I register my MTS COM object from Box A on Box B, so that Box B knows the object is on Box A it will work. No special stuff needed.
hmm... I now wonder why a guy named 'Box' wrote a COM book;) --
COM is standarized via The Open Group, plus MS has flooded their developerwebsites with info about COM, how it works, why you have to do this and that, plus every book on COM contains the basic knowledge how it works internally. Get Don Box' millionseller 'Essential COM'. He included a complete system describing how COM works, using C++ code and not a single line of win32 specific functionality.
It's very funny seeing the die-hard anti-MS people twisting and turning to avoid having to say 'Implement it as COM!'. COM not a bad protocol, people, in fact it's quite clever. And besides that: there are a LOT of com objects around the world, and a LOT of COM developers around the world.
so perhaps a nerd/geek/similar individual will take those reasons you've mentioned seriously and will then pay for a browser. The other 99% of mankind will just grab the most feature/funnyfunctions/picture/mediacrap filled browser they can get and use it. That's why people will not pay for a browser. And besides that: any decent geek/nerd/similar individual will be able to at least switch off some of the crapfeatures in IE's install. (for example: you don't have to install OE)
Slashdot Mirror
(the only purpose for this non-informative crapnews I can think of is: it must be a hint for a new conversation at the coffeemachine, when that nice blond from Marketing is at the coffeemachine at the same time as you do :)).
--
1) Sun bought Staroffice for 30milj$.
2) Sun added 4 times the developers to the project
3) After releasing the product for free for noncommercial usage, it's now totally free by releasing the sourcecode (however, how will they release the NDA-ed protected parts of the application???)
Adding this up... where's the catch? Sun is a commercial company only in the business for the money. Releasing the sourcecode is to me equal as throwing away the 30milj$. Pretty much if you ask me.
so.. where's the catch? why will this bring Sun extra $$ instead of costing only $$$ (as it does now, with truckloads!)
--
Furthermore: why would Sun open up the code? not just to play nice. To me it sounds like the development of Staroffice takes TOO MUCH money to continue. So opening up the source is a logical business step and doesnt have to mean it will DIE or being abandoned. They're just looking for cheap programmers (namely the OSS programmers, who don't cost a single DIME)
As some stated in this thread: if there won't be a strong project management, it will suffer. Let's hope that will be in place when the source is opened up (so direction of future development, designgoals etc are set by a team so it won't suffer from the lack of it as in most OSS projects)
I'm looking forward to have a look into the code. It would be a great learning experience for for example students of C.S., for example how to build a decent spreadsheet or wordprocessor. :)
--
so, AC, shoot! :)
--
hehe, the only reply worth reading :)
--
IIS4 can already do this. (run your website in a separate process, 1 click in the property sheet). The author of the article didn't have that much knowledge of the stuff he talks about aparantly. :)
Even MS (now!) admits that VB is only object based
MS ships the MSDN with VB. In that large library there are several books in digital format. some are about VB. All these books say it's object based. The VB docs state that too (they never mention Object oriented once). But frankly, there are some holy wars started years ago about C++ not being truely OO etc, it's a definition thing I guess :)
Object oriented development in VB.NET
A good example for the OO definition miscommunication :) If you program with binary objects like COM objects in a SOAP environment, for example the multi platform as shown in MS example The hanson brothers (good read: com and corba on win2k and solaris), you are busy with Object oriented programming, however not with details like object overloading. You ARE programming with objects. I think that's the main miscommunication here: it's not smalltalk OO definition, it's semantically OO: use objects to build your application, and the glue between these objects is your code, in whatever scriptlanguage (or program language) you want to write it in.
The fuzz about C# is a bit weird to me. There are literaly thousands of programlanguages, every language serving a special case. C# is one of them. So what! if it does a better job than java then so be it! It's fine by me: I can then use a language that fits better to the job than the other languages available. :)
--
And then what? it's not about which language gets the most popular. It's the ATTITUDE towards using languages: use the language that makes you develop the best result. If VB is more appropriate, use VB, if Perl is more appropriate don't use VB or C, use Perl.
It's easy. I think a good developer shouldn't give a rat's ass about which language gets the next 'the most popular language'-award. It's useless.
--
Newsflash: They are not your enemy. THey spent 2billion dollars a year on research. that has to result in something good, plus in some environments their products are better than other products. Choose the tool that fits the job, don't change the job to fit the tool
It's also sad that the majority here who tends to post articles OR replies won't bother to look into what .NET is all about and when there is something useful to adopt and include in Open Source projects. The majority focusses on DETAILS like the C# vs Java thing (both proprietry languages designed by 1 company. what's the difference?) or fud that MS isn't capable of cooking up such an environment.
I don't care if this gets moderated down because some anti-microsoft moderator hates what I write here, but I have to say it: Microsoft releases a LOT OF sourcecode, free for all.: The duwamish bookstore, a complete e-commerce application ready to roll (a complete online store), with code, docs etc. numerous examples, tutorials and docs.
I developed a lot in java but I'm very willing to swap to C# once it's there. Why? because the tradition of well done documentation (not generated CRAP like Sun gives us), lots of examples and full applications, complete in sourcecode will be extended when .NET is fully released.
You should try it sometimes. You can benefit from it. Instead of bashing it, you could do what made MS big and Japan's economy the world leader: adapt and extend.... Open your eyes. It will do good :)
--
1) Michael Abrash (you know... quake bsp code!) works for MS, and works on the XBox dx implementation :) Try it. :)
2) nVidia will provide a full OpenGL ICD for the XBox. (as stated in numerous newsitems). Therefor: it's totally logical that Carmack is an advisor for the XBox, because he is advisor for several OpenGL Driver implementators. He knows what's needed to get performance on the thing.
3) So what! Just because it's a microsoft product doesn't it make bad. When it's from Sony it's cool but from MS it's bad? What do you want then... a bag of parts and elements and a manual to solder, fiddle and build the thing yourself ? (plus write the 3D api layer yourself, because all you have is a chipset layout). Sometimes stuff that just comes out of a box and works directly is pretty ok
--
perhaps they've removed it because the tests were done using a BETA version of SQLserver 2000. All software used in the tests currently on the list are released versions.
--
Am I allowed to laugh about this? :)
If we just give the advocates/zealots/other craptalking people a separate forum, we can then go on with talking about Stuff That Matters(tm) over HERE. Thank you.
--
If you want a VC to invest in your project, you have to convince that VC that the project will turn into a profitable project so the VC can earn his money back plus extra. Otherwise, why would a VC invest in the project? Unless it's a filantrope of course. ;)
--
I didn't say it was good, I only mentioned it was free :) ofcourse you can't expect it's top notch when it emulates sqlserver but at the same time it isn't. I never tried it, perhaps it's ok.
--
Microsoft's MSDE is also a total free database. it's a database engine that acts like SQLserver and ment for developers, but you can run it as a database for normal usage, and avoid evil access databases.
--
A must have for unix developers? Only for people using COM objects on Win32 servers perhaps. The rest of the Unix world can move on, walk by, and get on with their lives. It's not necessary to work with EVERY language! Visual Studio contains: Foxpro, VBscript, Jscript, VB, VC++ and Java. Now a new language is added: C#. Big deal. Programming in Perl is not a common thing on win32 platforms, more VBscript is used. So what. Code the program->get the job done->next issue.
So, if you think of COM as in 'a root domain', forget this language :) you won't touch it. If you work with COM on a daily basis: it's for you. And you will be happy it's finally there. There is no need for mudthrowing. That is only a hint of not understanding what it's all about.
--
After a while I found out that it's better to find a language that fits the job you need it for than to struggle on with just 1 language you think is superior. It's not. At least not in all cases.
So, concluding: This language will be handy in some circumstances, for example for writing COM objects and you don't want to memorize 100010012343242 C++ macro's and you don't want apartmentthreaded VB objects. In other circumstances other languages are more handy. Deal with it, it's reality. Just bashing this language to death is the most stupid thing to do. Even if it's a total 1:1 copy of java's syntax it's a heaven's gift. You know why? because World Leader Sun doesn't allow people to write COM objects in Java. That's why.
For linux/unix oriented people this language isn't of much use I'm afraid. That's ok. in win32 land, perl is of no use. So what. Use the freaking tool you need to get your job done and move on to the next eager waitin' job to get finished. IMHO much more important than mumbling about a language you probably will never use.
--
To which features are you refering? When I look at the specs for the vertex and pixel shaders for d3d 8, I can't imagine what kind of 'revolutionairy' feature won't be able to build with that. Sure, perhaps hardware voxels or NURBS tessalation in hw is an option that is not included, but are these features already announced by vendors? most cards are hardly able to render the shaders in hardware, do T&L etc. When the majority of consumers are using hardware that is able to do all that, we will be a year from now, and D3D 9 will be at the horizon.
Still liked your shader implementation a lot though :) cheers.
--
D3D on the other hand always supplies you with a software emulation for a certain feature. Besides that, MS picks up new features very quickly and for example with the D3D 8, now in betatesting, D3D will have more features than OpenGL.
I'm an OpenGL programmer, I love the api, but please, don't drag the old OpenGL vs D3D debate into this thread. There is no 'BETTER' or 'WORSE'. There is just: 'this api works on windows' and 'this api works on more than just windows'. Take your pick.
--
The top vendors in the database world have all a product that has 90% of its functionality in common with the competition. 10% of it's features are unique. Oracle has more features than sqlserver, but mostly you don't need 'em or you can work around the lack of it. This works vice versa ofcourse. If you need a feature that's unique for oracle, you shouldn't use sqlserver. if you need handy stuff in sqlserver that's not in oracle or it's tools, avoid oracle.
Too many people however don't understand this and go for the 'well known product' while they'd better look out for the best fit for their needs.
--
pslist is downloadable from sysinternals.com
It takes some time to collect the handy tools you need, but then it's not hard to do whatever you want. :)
--
If you don't care which platform to choose and what your audience is using, it's up to your personal requirments. All other arguments are advocacy material. I can ramble along for hours what the advantages of development on win32 are above development on Linux. So can others about the advantages of linux development above win32 development. Hell, I think even some Mac user can join in and ramble with us :).
--
:) it's in the resourcekit. Or you can code it yourself with little amount of lines of code. It's very handy. Also, bringing the taskmanager up with cntrl-shift-esc saves some serious trouble.
--
And COM can't talk outside the box? since when is that? If I register my MTS COM object from Box A on Box B, so that Box B knows the object is on Box A it will work. No special stuff needed.
hmm... I now wonder why a guy named 'Box' wrote a COM book ;)
--
It's very funny seeing the die-hard anti-MS people twisting and turning to avoid having to say 'Implement it as COM!'. COM not a bad protocol, people, in fact it's quite clever. And besides that: there are a LOT of com objects around the world, and a LOT of COM developers around the world.
For Free, Mike!
--
--