Now the fact that American history books as taught in our schools will only go into detail on the first two (non-American "bad guys") and gives only token treatment to slavery and usually don't mention the Native American genocide is an entirely different problem... It's not a different problem, it exactly proves the point of the parent post you replied to: because in general americans believe they're doing good in the world and are a good country, exporting a good way of life, they can't do bad things, because... how can a good guy do bad things, right? You proved that the image americans have of themselves (being good guys) is flawed, with the example quoted above.
See: http://jdixon.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/paging_r esultsets_in_sql_2000_and_sql_2005.htm which has a good comparison between the two techniques: one for sqlserver 2000 and one for sqlserver 2005. You'll notice the 'with' statement and row_number, which are used together as a common table expression (CTE) which is an in-scope temp table without needing the temptable. It's incredibly powerful.
I think that platform independence is a HUGE plus in the FOSS world. WHAT platform independence? Most OSS software for linux is not runnable natively on windows or mac, or with a lot of pain and compromises.
If you're developing OSS for.NET, kudos on being open source, but you do miss the bonus points for being platform independent and don't whine about not getting the cred platform-independent projects of the same nature do. I miss bonuspoints? My oss dal generator for.NET is for.NET, why would I release a mac version or linux version if.NET isn't running on linux/mac ?
Open source is very simple: the development is open, the source is available. THAT's IT! There is nothing more. Cross platform has NOTHING to do with it, or if it would, most 'OSS' software falls flat on its face because it runs / behaves horribly on for example windows or mac.
And why do people have to 'port' code before they can make an argument? Because you do so? I doubt it.
Open Source, two words. One means 'Open', e.g. the opposite of 'Closed' and the other one means sourcecode, together they mean: a non-closed form of sourcecode.
Gee, since WHEN is that tied to CROSS PLATFORM crap? Because in this particular situation, it's very handy to use that cross-platform nonsense to hit back at this DNN OSS developer?
It's precisely the whining YOU put forward in your posting what made him write the article.
Bill and Melinda Gates are BY FAR the most generous people on earth. And the money THEY give, is not coming with a contract, like most money coming from the western countries, which demand the help is spend with their companies.
... the bug can still exist, you only test with such a test that the bug doesn't appear anymore in THAT particular situation.
API unit tests should make sure the API interface specifications match the actual implementation. If that's succeeding through the unittests, THEN you have at least knowledge the API is implemented OK (according to the specs) and any bugs following those tests are the result of a bug in the DESIGN.
.. they use an automatic build LAB for years now. No-one hits F7 or cntrl-shift-B inside visual studio and 'Windows.sln' loaded.
AFAIK, building windows takes half a day.
Of course they didn't start over from scratch. They just switched kernels. They always develop 2 kernels next to eachother. Instead of working further with the XP kernel, they switched over to teh win2k3 kernel.
The article has further flaws: who announces a switch of core components AND a release date? You must be really out of your mind. They step into Mr. Cutler's office. Isn't he the lead designer of the NT kernel/system?
The article babbles along about MS wanting windows to be modular. It IS modular! very modular in fact. That same Cutler designed it to be modular.
No, not the best article a journalist could write...
Well you forget that the code base isn't your basic business app. It's over 50 million lines of code. For ASP.NET alone (a fragment compared to windows code), they wrote over 500,000 unittests. Imagine how many unittests you need to test all routines in windows.
And you may joke about the process, but Linux doesn't use unittesting as well, left alone integration testing.
the point of web apps are portability, so if you're doing to dash portability, don't write a web app. No. THey're currently using Citrix, and for a reason (most organizations who use citrix use it because of this reason): your fat client app works on any system where citrix runs on. No client-side crap, conflicts with dll's etc.
A webapp simplifies this: no more citrix installations, the browser is already there. This means even less maintenance for sysadmins as no installation crap on the client has to take place.
I also fail why the topic starter wants to whine about browsers. It's a closed app, for a single client. Who cares if it's for a single browser: it has to WORK. If everyone has IE and it offers more ways to develop the webapp-, DO IT and with IE.
Nothing is more rewarding than fiddling with hardware registers, parallel execution lists and then... finally... get something visually on the screen:)
reading your post made me think back to the old demoscene days on the Amiga 500.:) I never have written a single statement for a console, but reading about how they're programmed it's similar to old amiga hardware as in: utilize the different hardware to get as much out of it as possible. That wasn't hard, it was FUN:). Good to know there are still people out there enjoying that kind of work:)
VB.NET already has a keyword 'Is', which does exactly that. However to execute a code block if 2 references aren't the same, you have to do:
If Not foo Is Bar Then... End If
Which is apparently too hard to remember for these VB.NET programmers. In a way it's awkward of course, you write as a C#/C++ programmer: If Foo... oh darn, I need 'Not' in front of Foo... and you swear and hate VB.NET forever.
So VB.NET designers thought... what about an IsNot operator? This really shows their inability to think: Colliding the Not to the Is operator makes it only work for Is. So I still have to write (if I would opt for VB.NET) If Not A = B Then... End If which compares to values, A and B and I can't say: If A Not = B Then... End If
So, now they'll have for value compare: If Not A = B Then... End If
and for reference compare you'll have: If A IsNot B Then... End If
Not only is IsNot redundant, it also makes the language fragile. In the If A IsNot B Then.. example, if A is a class (reference type) and I make it a struct, the code breaks. This could have been avoided if they would have made '=' as a comparison operator for ref and val types.
Are their DOS only based utilities to edit registry settings? since everything in windows is configured from the registry how do you edit those settings? Yes, they're in the resourcekit for windows 2000/2003/XP (and a lot of other command line tools)
But you don't have to do this, you can for example remotely login using terminal services for admin usage, even if the server doesn't have monitor,mouse and keyboard attached. But if you want to config windows using a commandline, you can.
rescanning hardware changes can be triggered by a reboot.
in Windows every processor would also have to run the entire GUI. Even if it is never used. No. First of all you can set cmd.exe as the shell instead of explorer.exe, second of all, if you don't hook up a monitor or log in, the shell is swapped out pretty fast, and doesn't get any cpu cycles.
Windows has proven time and again to be designed for stand-alone situation. All network and security add-ons have shown to be just that; add-ons.. huh? COM+ is designed to be a cross-machine/process object layer with security build in PER OBJECT, even per interface. Role based, AD controlled.
Stand alone? Add-ons? ever looked closely at windows 2000 or even NT 4? No, not the shell, the core OS.
Distributed computing simply isn't part of the base design. Morphing Windows into something it isn't will once again be a task for their marketing department, not engineering. You have definitely totally no clue whatsoever, and with you the moderators who modded you 'insightful'. 'Bullshit' would have been more like it.
Windows already has distributed computing build in, with transaction support which controls cross-machine/process transactions, it's available in every windows box (2000/XP/2003). Furthermore it has object-level security settings, based on roles, integrated in for example Active Directory so you can control which user can access/run which object.
'Grid computing!!!111'... it's a buzzword. The technology is already available for many years, however not a lot of software uses it, if you look at the many many applications available.
Considering that the Windows platform has never had the ability to parallel compute in the past, it leaves great potential to the company's operating system development. I don't know how much 'ReeprFlame' knows about windows, but it can't be a lot.:-/
... and XAML will be run by.NET 3.0, and will be the base of windowish GUI's which are build with web-based technology. THAT will be the next thing MS will offer.
True, with XUL you can do the same thing, or try to mimic it a bit, but the problem with XUL is that there isn't a big power behind it which controls the desktop or a large part of the desktops. MS will move to XAML powered GUI's within 5 years time, so all developers on windows will too. Browser? not needed.
he's an MVP, not an MS worker. MVP's are people awarded by Microsoft for their efforts in helping others out. An MS employee can't be an MVP by definition.
Why didn't he setup a non-root account for his wife on the windows box? Why didn't he install THE browser, Firefox, on his wife computer? Why didn't he enable excessive auditing so he could track down which app installed what and when?
Oh, that's too hard? If that's too hard, you're not a sysadmin.
True, spyware can be almost viral these days, but there is one factor which enables it in the first place: the user. "Oh, this nice free tool from www.[the tool's name].com is so handy!", should ring a bell, a lot of bells, alarmbells to be exact. NO search bar comes for free, unless it's open source, to name an example.
First I thought, hmm could be a great article, but after a few paragraphs it was clear this article is not great, it's the frustration of a person who doesn't WANT to understand windows and blames the consequences of that to the OS. I mean, blaming IE and not having firefox installed should be enough to categorize this article as "ordinairy propaganda".
The plan would shut down access not only to the GPS satellite network, but projects like the EU's Galileo.
How would mr. Bush have any control over people accessing EU's sattelites? The Galileo project is started to get independent from the 'plans' mr. Bush and friends have with GPS. If Bush can control access to that network, being independent is pretty useless IMHO.
WinFS is not an ordinairy filesystem with an index on steroids. It's a system which allows you to store files as regular objects together with dataobjects you don't see as files, like an email contact, a customer entity from your accounting program, etc. etc.
Because of this, you can query, from the shell, on not only your files, but also your objects from other applications. THIS is the real thing about WinFS. WinFS offers the developer a neat, clean, OO api for accessing / querying the objects inside WinFS as well.
Files with a great search, like spotlight, it's very very great, but is a developer of a desktop application able to store its data directly into the filesystem so the data of the app can be queried from the shell as well?
Slashdot Mirror
MIPS isn't plural :). Millions Instructions Per Second. So 1 MIPS, 2 MIPS etc.
Now the fact that American history books as taught in our schools will only go into detail on the first two (non-American "bad guys") and gives only token treatment to slavery and usually don't mention the Native American genocide is an entirely different problem...
It's not a different problem, it exactly proves the point of the parent post you replied to: because in general americans believe they're doing good in the world and are a good country, exporting a good way of life, they can't do bad things, because... how can a good guy do bad things, right? You proved that the image americans have of themselves (being good guys) is flawed, with the example quoted above.
Resolves in: a mix of greys.
It's different with the 360: all chips are now Microsoft owned. THey bought all the IP. See anandtech's article about dissecting an xbox360 recently.
See:r esultsets_in_sql_2000_and_sql_2005.htm
http://jdixon.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/paging_
which has a good comparison between the two techniques: one for sqlserver 2000 and one for sqlserver 2005. You'll notice the 'with' statement and row_number, which are used together as a common table expression (CTE) which is an in-scope temp table without needing the temptable. It's incredibly powerful.
I think that platform independence is a HUGE plus in the FOSS world.
.NET, kudos on being open source, but you do miss the bonus points for being platform independent and don't whine about not getting the cred platform-independent projects of the same nature do. .NET is for .NET, why would I release a mac version or linux version if .NET isn't running on linux/mac ?
WHAT platform independence? Most OSS software for linux is not runnable natively on windows or mac, or with a lot of pain and compromises.
If you're developing OSS for
I miss bonuspoints? My oss dal generator for
Open source is very simple: the development is open, the source is available. THAT's IT! There is nothing more. Cross platform has NOTHING to do with it, or if it would, most 'OSS' software falls flat on its face because it runs / behaves horribly on for example windows or mac.
And why do people have to 'port' code before they can make an argument? Because you do so? I doubt it.
Open Source, two words. One means 'Open', e.g. the opposite of 'Closed' and the other one means sourcecode, together they mean: a non-closed form of sourcecode.
Gee, since WHEN is that tied to CROSS PLATFORM crap? Because in this particular situation, it's very handy to use that cross-platform nonsense to hit back at this DNN OSS developer?
It's precisely the whining YOU put forward in your posting what made him write the article.
...
oh, the silence.
Bill and Melinda Gates are BY FAR the most generous people on earth. And the money THEY give, is not coming with a contract, like most money coming from the western countries, which demand the help is spend with their companies.
... the bug can still exist, you only test with such a test that the bug doesn't appear anymore in THAT particular situation.
API unit tests should make sure the API interface specifications match the actual implementation. If that's succeeding through the unittests, THEN you have at least knowledge the API is implemented OK (according to the specs) and any bugs following those tests are the result of a bug in the DESIGN.
.. they use an automatic build LAB for years now. No-one hits F7 or cntrl-shift-B inside visual studio and 'Windows.sln' loaded.
AFAIK, building windows takes half a day.
Of course they didn't start over from scratch. They just switched kernels. They always develop 2 kernels next to eachother. Instead of working further with the XP kernel, they switched over to teh win2k3 kernel.
The article has further flaws: who announces a switch of core components AND a release date? You must be really out of your mind. They step into Mr. Cutler's office. Isn't he the lead designer of the NT kernel/system?
The article babbles along about MS wanting windows to be modular. It IS modular! very modular in fact. That same Cutler designed it to be modular.
No, not the best article a journalist could write...
Well you forget that the code base isn't your basic business app. It's over 50 million lines of code. For ASP.NET alone (a fragment compared to windows code), they wrote over 500,000 unittests. Imagine how many unittests you need to test all routines in windows.
And you may joke about the process, but Linux doesn't use unittesting as well, left alone integration testing.
... due to the flames.
Who would have thought!
the point of web apps are portability, so if you're doing to dash portability, don't write a web app.
No. THey're currently using Citrix, and for a reason (most organizations who use citrix use it because of this reason): your fat client app works on any system where citrix runs on. No client-side crap, conflicts with dll's etc.
A webapp simplifies this: no more citrix installations, the browser is already there. This means even less maintenance for sysadmins as no installation crap on the client has to take place.
I also fail why the topic starter wants to whine about browsers. It's a closed app, for a single client. Who cares if it's for a single browser: it has to WORK. If everyone has IE and it offers more ways to develop the webapp-, DO IT and with IE.
:).
:)
:) I never have written a single statement for a console, but reading about how they're programmed it's similar to old amiga hardware as in: utilize the different hardware to get as much out of it as possible. That wasn't hard, it was FUN :). Good to know there are still people out there enjoying that kind of work :)
Nothing is more rewarding than fiddling with hardware registers, parallel execution lists and then... finally... get something visually on the screen
reading your post made me think back to the old demoscene days on the Amiga 500.
VB.NET already has a keyword 'Is', which does exactly that. However to execute a code block if 2 references aren't the same, you have to do:
...
... oh darn, I need 'Not' in front of Foo... and you swear and hate VB.NET forever.
... ...
...
...
If Not foo Is Bar Then
End If
Which is apparently too hard to remember for these VB.NET programmers. In a way it's awkward of course, you write as a C#/C++ programmer: If Foo
So VB.NET designers thought... what about an IsNot operator? This really shows their inability to think: Colliding the Not to the Is operator makes it only work for Is. So I still have to write (if I would opt for VB.NET)
If Not A = B Then
End If
which compares to values, A and B and I can't say:
If A Not = B Then
End If
So, now they'll have for value compare:
If Not A = B Then
End If
and for reference compare you'll have:
If A IsNot B Then
End If
Not only is IsNot redundant, it also makes the language fragile. In the If A IsNot B Then.. example, if A is a class (reference type) and I make it a struct, the code breaks. This could have been avoided if they would have made '=' as a comparison operator for ref and val types.
Are their DOS only based utilities to edit registry settings? since everything in windows is configured from the registry how do you edit those settings?
Yes, they're in the resourcekit for windows 2000/2003/XP (and a lot of other command line tools)
But you don't have to do this, you can for example remotely login using terminal services for admin usage, even if the server doesn't have monitor,mouse and keyboard attached. But if you want to config windows using a commandline, you can.
rescanning hardware changes can be triggered by a reboot.
ah, you never saw a rack of windows servers access a separate file cabinet?
in Windows every processor would also have to run the entire GUI. Even if it is never used.
No. First of all you can set cmd.exe as the shell instead of explorer.exe, second of all, if you don't hook up a monitor or log in, the shell is swapped out pretty fast, and doesn't get any cpu cycles.
Windows has proven time and again to be designed for stand-alone situation. All network and security add-ons have shown to be just that; add-ons..
huh? COM+ is designed to be a cross-machine/process object layer with security build in PER OBJECT, even per interface. Role based, AD controlled.
Stand alone? Add-ons? ever looked closely at windows 2000 or even NT 4? No, not the shell, the core OS.
Distributed computing simply isn't part of the base design. Morphing Windows into something it isn't will once again be a task for their marketing department, not engineering.
You have definitely totally no clue whatsoever, and with you the moderators who modded you 'insightful'. 'Bullshit' would have been more like it.
Windows already has distributed computing build in, with transaction support which controls cross-machine/process transactions, it's available in every windows box (2000/XP/2003). Furthermore it has object-level security settings, based on roles, integrated in for example Active Directory so you can control which user can access/run which object.
:-/
'Grid computing!!!111'... it's a buzzword. The technology is already available for many years, however not a lot of software uses it, if you look at the many many applications available.
Considering that the Windows platform has never had the ability to parallel compute in the past, it leaves great potential to the company's operating system development.
I don't know how much 'ReeprFlame' knows about windows, but it can't be a lot.
... and XAML will be run by .NET 3.0, and will be the base of windowish GUI's which are build with web-based technology. THAT will be the next thing MS will offer.
True, with XUL you can do the same thing, or try to mimic it a bit, but the problem with XUL is that there isn't a big power behind it which controls the desktop or a large part of the desktops. MS will move to XAML powered GUI's within 5 years time, so all developers on windows will too. Browser? not needed.
he's an MVP, not an MS worker. MVP's are people awarded by Microsoft for their efforts in helping others out. An MS employee can't be an MVP by definition.
FB, C# MVP
Why didn't he setup a non-root account for his wife on the windows box? Why didn't he install THE browser, Firefox, on his wife computer? Why didn't he enable excessive auditing so he could track down which app installed what and when?
Oh, that's too hard? If that's too hard, you're not a sysadmin.
True, spyware can be almost viral these days, but there is one factor which enables it in the first place: the user. "Oh, this nice free tool from www.[the tool's name].com is so handy!", should ring a bell, a lot of bells, alarmbells to be exact. NO search bar comes for free, unless it's open source, to name an example.
First I thought, hmm could be a great article, but after a few paragraphs it was clear this article is not great, it's the frustration of a person who doesn't WANT to understand windows and blames the consequences of that to the OS. I mean, blaming IE and not having firefox installed should be enough to categorize this article as "ordinairy propaganda".
The plan would shut down access not only to the GPS satellite network, but projects like the EU's Galileo.
How would mr. Bush have any control over people accessing EU's sattelites? The Galileo project is started to get independent from the 'plans' mr. Bush and friends have with GPS. If Bush can control access to that network, being independent is pretty useless IMHO.
.. who invented dragging the floppy disk to the trashcan to eject it from the drive. How much brainpower went into that one?
(probably as much as MS put into the fact that you have to click 'Start' to quit with WinXP)
WinFS is not an ordinairy filesystem with an index on steroids. It's a system which allows you to store files as regular objects together with dataobjects you don't see as files, like an email contact, a customer entity from your accounting program, etc. etc.
Because of this, you can query, from the shell, on not only your files, but also your objects from other applications. THIS is the real thing about WinFS. WinFS offers the developer a neat, clean, OO api for accessing / querying the objects inside WinFS as well.
Files with a great search, like spotlight, it's very very great, but is a developer of a desktop application able to store its data directly into the filesystem so the data of the app can be queried from the shell as well?