Sorry, but you talk out of your arse. I live in The Netherlands, Europe and what I don't understand is why can't people simply live together on the same dirth they call 'home land' ? You talk about whites losing their homeland, what a BS. I still live in the country I grew up in, and the city I live in is in 10 years for 55% non-white, who cares. I'm frisian but live in The Hague, which means I'm from outside the city as well, I just happen to have a white skin, well, SO WHAT. Does it matter what the color of my skin is to be able to say "This is MY land" ? NO! A person born here with Maroc parents is still born here, like me. Perhaps my great great grand parents are germans, or scandinavians, who knows... (so I'm not entitled to this 'land' either).
No. It's part of the deal of the bank with you. They keep YOUR money safe and in return they pay you a (very little at the moment) interrest and keep your data safe as well.
That a law can overthrow such a deal is stunning enough. I mean, a lot of other deals can be upheld in court if they want (like medical records)
Have you paid a visit to those prison camps for political prisoners who have to fabricate goods for no payment at all, goods which are sold in the western world? China has a lot of those prisons. I don't think you did, because if you would have done that, you wouldn't have posted this post.
I'm not an American, I live in Europe. So I can fairly say China AND the USA are non-free countries. I also say the US of A should shut up, with 4% of the world population and 40% of all the weath on this earth in their pockets. However, that doesn't make it right what's going on in China, especially when you don't think a 1 party system is ok.
... which takes care of the misery. While I understand your point about paying for features you don't use, it's YOUR problem that your OS doesn't do what you want. See, it's software and a free world. If you use an OS that sucks in an area you don't want it to suck, perhaps you should move on and install another OS which doesn't have these problems.
You don't have to agree with me, but I can only conclude that the restrictive GPL with its vague derived work clause is hurting Linux: a company won't put trade secrets into a binary driver to run the risk of losing these trade secrets because of a lawsuit based on the GPL which states that the binary only driver has to be opened up because it violates the GPL.
OR get a proper system into place like in Windows, for kernel modules so the modules are not 'derived works' (calling kernel modules derived works is pretty stupid IMHO, but that aside) OR live by the fact that not a lot of hardware vendors will offer drivers for their hardware. (which then results in the 'home brewn' drivers which are not always up to par).
Reading all the comments here I simply can't understand why so many people are so hardheaded. Don't you see / understand that to make Linux an OS with great support for a LOT of hardware, you have to convince hardware vendors their drivers will not be part of a GPL-case? Apparently not.
When it gets colder and colder, more and more cars break down on the freeways, because of engine problems related to colder temperatures, moist etc...
When I compare that with my Windows XP install which hasn't crashed on my in the last year (and I use it 16+ hours a day) ONCE, I don't know, but XP does it better than my Mercedes A140 which broke down a couple of times in the last year.:)
You declare 'Avalon' as the most interesting development of Longhorn. That figures. The OS, like ANY OS, isn't about the pretty pictures and the smooth animations. It's about the guts and glory below deck.
Indigo, the complete new core for distributed services which replaces a whole set of current fragmented technologies, is what makes Longhorn special. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but it shows at the same time that you probably won't be in the front seat of IT in 2006.
They shared the recent build of Longhorn with all PDC visitors, MSDN subscribers and it will be available soon on microsoft's website for download.
And just a FYI: Microsoft releases a lot of sourcecode each year: examples, starterkits, free applications (that's right) etc. This sourcecode comes without a GPL-ed license, so you can include the code in your own projects if you want.
You might not like what you see, but at least keep in touch with reality.
This means you work on an object in your local address space but the object you are working with is in fact sending off your method calls to the real object elsewhere (another machine, another address space, whatever) that performs the necessary operations. Not completely true, you can also use remoting and work with the objects by value. This means that the object is created on teh server, marshalled by value to the client, there it is for example filled with data and then marshalled back to the server by a call to a method. This is the way DataSets are used in a remoting scenario.
This scenario is much more efficient, because not every property set/get is transported over the wire.
It's not an issue. When using webservices, you are bound to use the XmlSerializer, or better: please the XmlSerializer. It will generate XML from your objects, and often fails to do so because it can't deal with interfaces for example. Also, serializing objects to the client via xml webservices is not the right thing to do: what if that client isn't a.NET application? It then can't deserialize your object anyway. So Webservices are GREAT when communicating DATA in a standarized format in XML. Not Objects. So remoting isn't an option for these situations anyway.
However, a lot of people who want to write a distributed application with.NET (thus client and server are both written in.NET) are using webservices because they think it's best. For THESE people remoting is better, because both sides are.NET and thus can deserialize objects directly or work with marshalled objects remotely. Therefore, for these setups it's not an issue being locked into a single vendor's universe, because client and server are already of that vendor.
I once, when I took my first steps on building PCs (I worked with amigas before that) tried to install my brand new SB AWE32 soundcard in my then brand new Compaq P90 tower.
It went something like this: "Ok, cover open, free slot.. check." *grabs card* "Ok, now insert card in slot.... check." "Ok! now lets boot and install drivers." *looks at PC and discovers it was already on... uhoh:)*
The card worked fine though.:)
It's about VIEWS on data
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
"But I like NTFS!"... and other remarks... I don't get them. Sure you probably like the 'File' view on data on your harddisk. That's the only view NTFS can deliver you at the moment.
However that's inefficient. The reason for that is that when you have a word document with an embedded table, and you want to read that table, you have to open the document. What if you could see the document FILE as a view on the data that make the file: text and that table. Then you can also create another view on the same data: just the table. Or other text and the same table.
THAT is something NTFS or another FS will not bring you. With this FS it can. That's the power and the holy grail the VP is talking about. After all, RDBMS-es started out as a lousy file system too, but today data isn't stored as files on disk, but much more efficient to make working with the data more efficient.
Here in the Netherlands, a consumer is allowed to create copies of digital distributed media for personal use (so you are allowed to copy the CD you bought so you can also listen to it in your car). Now, if some DRM forbids me to copy a music file so I can also listen to it in my car, it is not obeying the law, because by LAW I am entitled to copy the file contents!
IIS itself doesn't have a lot of holes, the Win32 kernel also doesn't have a lot of holes.
This virus BS is caused by a dumb user clicking on an attachment. How is that suddenly a 'flaw' in 'Windows'? A flaw in some FTP server application isn't a flaw in Linux so why should a flaw in the design of an old version of Outlook (modern outlooks strip off executables) a flaw in windows?
So, why should a flaw in an isapi filter in IIS (i.e.: an add on, like mod-perl) be a flaw in IIS, while a flaw in mod-php or mod-perl is not a flaw in apache?
If you want to discuss security, fine, but stop crying like a little child how bad the other kiddies are compared to yourself.
"In the ongoing battle between SCO and the Linux community, German publisher Heise has shown that not only was the Linux implementation of the Berkeley Packet filter written outside of Caldera (now SCO), but that it was common practice there and at other companies to remove the BSD copyright notices from the internally used source code. In effect, SCO has proven publicly that they violated the BSD license." Not only SCO proved that they violated the BSD license, every Linux distro does.
Now, reading the replies on this article, I find it remarkable no-one has noted this. No offence, but even when code is licensed under the BSD license, that license has to be obeyed. You can't remove copyright claims because you think that's necessary. When someone violates the GPL, hordes of people think they have to say something bad about the possible violator. However, it seems the Linux kernel as well violates an OSS license, which is IMHO as bad as violating a GPL license or any license.
... your posting. When a 3rd party driver crashes, it probably will take down the system as well, since it runs in ring 0, and can walk over kernel resources (and probably did).
When Windows gets read-only mempages (IIRC win2k3 has them) for kernel processes, this will be ended, until then: the 3rd party drivers are mostly at fault.
If motion is the definition for the delta in position that is occured in a delta time, you can argue that on a given time T you are on position P and on another given time T' you are on position P'. If you take the snapshot at position P at time T, there seems to be no motion. This is correct, since there is no delta T, so there can't be any motion.
When you define time as something that can't be measured in a single unit, i.e. there can't be a definition for a time T, there always will be motion when you try to reach the time T you otherwise would have defined when time would have been measurable in a single unit
The paradoxes that are tried to be solved are word-games. If you simply use every day highschool physics math, you can calculate exactly when Achilles will overtake the turtle and even the spot. Because the reality is not in sync with the paradox, the paradox contains a flaw. It's thus not about solving some physics problem, but a problem with words that's embedded inside the paradox.
If you are programming stored procedures in C#, you don't get what the strong points of SQL are: SQL is set based, not imperative. This means that with a few statements you can do incredible powerful things (try to write out an update query based on a where that has predicates which include a table stated in the FROM clause in C#:P).
Doing all that in C# is stupid, it's like: "look, we can do it in C# as well!". very nice indeed for the featurelist but impractical for day to day work.
C# can be good for the imperative constructs placed often in stored procedures, like loops, control flow etc. However, why doing that in a stored procedure? You don't have to. You can do that very well in C# that's outside the database calling specific stored procedures or even using dynamic parametrized queries.
SqlServer caches execution plans of dynamic parametrized queries as well. So if you can limit the actions to perform on the data by running a set of imperative statements (which is a strong point of imperative languages) and then fire those actions in plain SQL to the sqlserver, you most of the time get hte best performance. And because sqlserver caches execution plans of those queries, you won't loose performance because the sql has to be compiled over and over.
Then show us, whiny socialists, that I am wrong and remove the republican majority from the goverment, free the government and its related bodies from the strong ties with big corporations.
I fear however that in 2004 you won't be that correct.
The 'viral' remark is not made to just call the GPL as something bad, the viral remark is made to illustrate that the GPL fights its way into your own software like a virus does with its host cells: it enters the host cell, most of the time fooling that host cell and after that it takes over the host cell, using it as a tool to reproduce ITSELF. This is also the case with the GPL. It works itself into your software via teh linkage to a binary file, and takes over the license of your software (which can also be a library) and uses your software (f.e. your library) as a tool to reproduce itself, for example to the users of YOUR software.
That's the viral part. And it will NEVER hold up in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but you talk out of your arse. I live in The Netherlands, Europe and what I don't understand is why can't people simply live together on the same dirth they call 'home land' ? You talk about whites losing their homeland, what a BS. I still live in the country I grew up in, and the city I live in is in 10 years for 55% non-white, who cares. I'm frisian but live in The Hague, which means I'm from outside the city as well, I just happen to have a white skin, well, SO WHAT. Does it matter what the color of my skin is to be able to say "This is MY land" ? NO! A person born here with Maroc parents is still born here, like me. Perhaps my great great grand parents are germans, or scandinavians, who knows... (so I'm not entitled to this 'land' either).
THe world is for everyone, no-one 'owns' land.
No. It's part of the deal of the bank with you. They keep YOUR money safe and in return they pay you a (very little at the moment) interrest and keep your data safe as well.
That a law can overthrow such a deal is stunning enough. I mean, a lot of other deals can be upheld in court if they want (like medical records)
Have you paid a visit to those prison camps for political prisoners who have to fabricate goods for no payment at all, goods which are sold in the western world? China has a lot of those prisons. I don't think you did, because if you would have done that, you wouldn't have posted this post.
I'm not an American, I live in Europe. So I can fairly say China AND the USA are non-free countries. I also say the US of A should shut up, with 4% of the world population and 40% of all the weath on this earth in their pockets. However, that doesn't make it right what's going on in China, especially when you don't think a 1 party system is ok.
... which takes care of the misery. While I understand your point about paying for features you don't use, it's YOUR problem that your OS doesn't do what you want. See, it's software and a free world. If you use an OS that sucks in an area you don't want it to suck, perhaps you should move on and install another OS which doesn't have these problems.
... if you are the ligitimate owner or not. You give the note(s), you get your goods.
Here: you wave your card, you get the goods.
You don't have to agree with me, but I can only conclude that the restrictive GPL with its vague derived work clause is hurting Linux: a company won't put trade secrets into a binary driver to run the risk of losing these trade secrets because of a lawsuit based on the GPL which states that the binary only driver has to be opened up because it violates the GPL.
OR get a proper system into place like in Windows, for kernel modules so the modules are not 'derived works' (calling kernel modules derived works is pretty stupid IMHO, but that aside) OR live by the fact that not a lot of hardware vendors will offer drivers for their hardware. (which then results in the 'home brewn' drivers which are not always up to par).
Reading all the comments here I simply can't understand why so many people are so hardheaded. Don't you see / understand that to make Linux an OS with great support for a LOT of hardware, you have to convince hardware vendors their drivers will not be part of a GPL-case? Apparently not.
... at least the site is slashdotted :)
When it gets colder and colder, more and more cars break down on the freeways, because of engine problems related to colder temperatures, moist etc...
:)
When I compare that with my Windows XP install which hasn't crashed on my in the last year (and I use it 16+ hours a day) ONCE, I don't know, but XP does it better than my Mercedes A140 which broke down a couple of times in the last year.
I doubt that Microsoft (or any commercial software company) would publically annouce that it had been compromised.
;))
Valve comes to mind... (run by 2 ex-MS employees
You declare 'Avalon' as the most interesting development of Longhorn. That figures. The OS, like ANY OS, isn't about the pretty pictures and the smooth animations. It's about the guts and glory below deck.
Indigo, the complete new core for distributed services which replaces a whole set of current fragmented technologies, is what makes Longhorn special. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but it shows at the same time that you probably won't be in the front seat of IT in 2006.
They shared the recent build of Longhorn with all PDC visitors, MSDN subscribers and it will be available soon on microsoft's website for download.
And just a FYI: Microsoft releases a lot of sourcecode each year: examples, starterkits, free applications (that's right) etc. This sourcecode comes without a GPL-ed license, so you can include the code in your own projects if you want.
You might not like what you see, but at least keep in touch with reality.
http://longhorn.msdn.microsoft.com/
This means you work on an object in your local address space but the object you are working with is in fact sending off your method calls to the real object elsewhere (another machine, another address space, whatever) that performs the necessary operations.
Not completely true, you can also use remoting and work with the objects by value. This means that the object is created on teh server, marshalled by value to the client, there it is for example filled with data and then marshalled back to the server by a call to a method. This is the way DataSets are used in a remoting scenario.
This scenario is much more efficient, because not every property set/get is transported over the wire.
It's not an issue. When using webservices, you are bound to use the XmlSerializer, or better: please the XmlSerializer. It will generate XML from your objects, and often fails to do so because it can't deal with interfaces for example. Also, serializing objects to the client via xml webservices is not the right thing to do: what if that client isn't a .NET application? It then can't deserialize your object anyway. So Webservices are GREAT when communicating DATA in a standarized format in XML. Not Objects. So remoting isn't an option for these situations anyway.
.NET (thus client and server are both written in .NET) are using webservices because they think it's best. For THESE people remoting is better, because both sides are .NET and thus can deserialize objects directly or work with marshalled objects remotely. Therefore, for these setups it's not an issue being locked into a single vendor's universe, because client and server are already of that vendor.
However, a lot of people who want to write a distributed application with
I once, when I took my first steps on building PCs (I worked with amigas before that) tried to install my brand new SB AWE32 soundcard in my then brand new Compaq P90 tower.
.... check." :)*
:)
It went something like this:
"Ok, cover open, free slot.. check."
*grabs card*
"Ok, now insert card in slot
"Ok! now lets boot and install drivers."
*looks at PC and discovers it was already on... uhoh
The card worked fine though.
"But I like NTFS!"... and other remarks... I don't get them. Sure you probably like the 'File' view on data on your harddisk. That's the only view NTFS can deliver you at the moment.
However that's inefficient. The reason for that is that when you have a word document with an embedded table, and you want to read that table, you have to open the document. What if you could see the document FILE as a view on the data that make the file: text and that table. Then you can also create another view on the same data: just the table. Or other text and the same table.
THAT is something NTFS or another FS will not bring you. With this FS it can. That's the power and the holy grail the VP is talking about. After all, RDBMS-es started out as a lousy file system too, but today data isn't stored as files on disk, but much more efficient to make working with the data more efficient.
Here in the Netherlands, a consumer is allowed to create copies of digital distributed media for personal use (so you are allowed to copy the CD you bought so you can also listen to it in your car). Now, if some DRM forbids me to copy a music file so I can also listen to it in my car, it is not obeying the law, because by LAW I am entitled to copy the file contents!
Refactoring is part of the IDE in Whidbey.
IIS itself doesn't have a lot of holes, the Win32 kernel also doesn't have a lot of holes.
This virus BS is caused by a dumb user clicking on an attachment. How is that suddenly a 'flaw' in 'Windows'? A flaw in some FTP server application isn't a flaw in Linux so why should a flaw in the design of an old version of Outlook (modern outlooks strip off executables) a flaw in windows?
So, why should a flaw in an isapi filter in IIS (i.e.: an add on, like mod-perl) be a flaw in IIS, while a flaw in mod-php or mod-perl is not a flaw in apache?
If you want to discuss security, fine, but stop crying like a little child how bad the other kiddies are compared to yourself.
"In the ongoing battle between SCO and the Linux community, German publisher Heise has shown that not only was the Linux implementation of the Berkeley Packet filter written outside of Caldera (now SCO), but that it was common practice there and at other companies to remove the BSD copyright notices from the internally used source code. In effect, SCO has proven publicly that they violated the BSD license."
Not only SCO proved that they violated the BSD license, every Linux distro does.
Now, reading the replies on this article, I find it remarkable no-one has noted this. No offence, but even when code is licensed under the BSD license, that license has to be obeyed. You can't remove copyright claims because you think that's necessary. When someone violates the GPL, hordes of people think they have to say something bad about the possible violator. However, it seems the Linux kernel as well violates an OSS license, which is IMHO as bad as violating a GPL license or any license.
... your posting. When a 3rd party driver crashes, it probably will take down the system as well, since it runs in ring 0, and can walk over kernel resources (and probably did).
When Windows gets read-only mempages (IIRC win2k3 has them) for kernel processes, this will be ended, until then: the 3rd party drivers are mostly at fault.
If motion is the definition for the delta in position that is occured in a delta time, you can argue that on a given time T you are on position P and on another given time T' you are on position P'. If you take the snapshot at position P at time T, there seems to be no motion. This is correct, since there is no delta T, so there can't be any motion.
When you define time as something that can't be measured in a single unit, i.e. there can't be a definition for a time T, there always will be motion when you try to reach the time T you otherwise would have defined when time would have been measurable in a single unit
The paradoxes that are tried to be solved are word-games. If you simply use every day highschool physics math, you can calculate exactly when Achilles will overtake the turtle and even the spot. Because the reality is not in sync with the paradox, the paradox contains a flaw. It's thus not about solving some physics problem, but a problem with words that's embedded inside the paradox.
If you are programming stored procedures in C#, you don't get what the strong points of SQL are: SQL is set based, not imperative. This means that with a few statements you can do incredible powerful things (try to write out an update query based on a where that has predicates which include a table stated in the FROM clause in C# :P).
Doing all that in C# is stupid, it's like: "look, we can do it in C# as well!". very nice indeed for the featurelist but impractical for day to day work.
C# can be good for the imperative constructs placed often in stored procedures, like loops, control flow etc. However, why doing that in a stored procedure? You don't have to. You can do that very well in C# that's outside the database calling specific stored procedures or even using dynamic parametrized queries.
SqlServer caches execution plans of dynamic parametrized queries as well. So if you can limit the actions to perform on the data by running a set of imperative statements (which is a strong point of imperative languages) and then fire those actions in plain SQL to the sqlserver, you most of the time get hte best performance. And because sqlserver caches execution plans of those queries, you won't loose performance because the sql has to be compiled over and over.
Then show us, whiny socialists, that I am wrong and remove the republican majority from the goverment, free the government and its related bodies from the strong ties with big corporations.
I fear however that in 2004 you won't be that correct.
The 'viral' remark is not made to just call the GPL as something bad, the viral remark is made to illustrate that the GPL fights its way into your own software like a virus does with its host cells: it enters the host cell, most of the time fooling that host cell and after that it takes over the host cell, using it as a tool to reproduce ITSELF. This is also the case with the GPL. It works itself into your software via teh linkage to a binary file, and takes over the license of your software (which can also be a library) and uses your software (f.e. your library) as a tool to reproduce itself, for example to the users of YOUR software.
That's the viral part. And it will NEVER hold up in court.