Write for mono then, and don't use functionality exclusive to.net (eg, windows forms, etc).
Just because the idea came originally from Microsoft, doesn't automatically make it bad.
I see mono as a very useful transitional technology. Write for mono. Your app will run on both Linux and Win32. As you port your apps completely to mono, you have the option to drop windows, if you like.
In the C# reference I have, (admittedly not an MS publication), it explicitly recommends NOT to use native windows functions, in an aid to portability.
Of course, if people were to just write straight for Linux/C/C++, Microsoft would lose. If they write for Mono/.net, microsoft can at least still run the ported app.
You'll have old stock, and even if you cut a new cd for every customer, by the time it gets to them via post/etc its out of date.
Mandatory packet filtering, with the user explicity having to turn on network services is the way to go - assume ALL software is exploitable, and control the risk.
The major worms out there exploit services that no sane person should be running visible to the internet at large anwyay - at least not without knowing about it.
IE exploits are a seperate issue - i don't think that problem is going to go away any time soon, until IE gets fixed or replaced.
I'm not sure what your policy is, but any time I work in a virus infected machine, i make it a policy to backup and reinstall.
Fact is, if your machine has been compromised, you really don't know what may have been done to it.
As I posted earlier, these days, it really is not that difficult.
Turn on your XP firewall before you connect, then download the updates, then open up whatever ports you need (or, if you like flirting with danger, turn the firewall back off once you're patched). If you don't have a firewall, get one - unless you like causing everyone else grief every time you get owned and spew garbage over the net for a week before anyone notices, and you have to reinstall.
There's little point in asking end users nicely - they'll ignore it. As a sysadmin for an ISP for a few years, I know that 90% of your users do not read sysadmin email - we gave warning 12 months in advance of one of our old domains being turned off (due to company name change, and in.au you must have company ownership to own a.com.au), and on the day it was turned off, had users complaining that they had a heap of stationery printed that week.
Call then? At a cost in both manpower and money to the ISP? Why should the ISP have to wear the cost?
Its been in most ISP terms of service since the net began - "we reserve the right to deny service for breach of service agreement" or words to that effect.
How long till some uber-nerd builds a filesystem that uses GMail accounts for storage space? For each account you have your filesystem grows by 1gb, and you could raid different accounts so when google shuts you down for abuse, you don't loose your data. It just needs to do a lot of caching and email uuencoded data chunks to yourself to store the bits. I think its a winner... I should patent that idea.
You realise that disk currently runs about $3/gig (australian) right?
On windows, this requires much wanking around with group policy, etc to prevent the user from saving to other areas of the system, and often breaks legacy apps.
Under *nix, they don't get access to other areas of the system, and virtually every native app uses . files in the user's home directory for configuration...
Yes, its do-able, but windows key selling point is "its easy to administer!".
They can still corrupt or erase their own data, which is really the only thing that matters on a single-user system. Hard to stop that one though.
They can do that on Windows as well. BFD... restore from tape.
'Cept on the *Nix variant, you can be sure that ALL their data is stored in a single directory, under/home, as opposed to strewn throughout the filesystem...
Yes, however you're assuming that little changes between versions of MS apps.
THe differences between say, office 2k3 and Office 2000 are quite large, as is the difference between the XP user interface, and something like Windows NT/2000/98.
Outlook 2k3 for example, is very different to Outlook XP even - it looks like a completely different app...
Regardless of platform, the trend for many business apps is to shift to a web/intranet-oriented design. Even in my workplace here, where management is very resistant to change, most of our new in-house business apps are web-driven or accessible via a browser in some way.
The *biggest* hurdle i can see is file sharing, however, NFS-mount/home and you're set, really... roaming profiles and all;)
Citrix metaframe + terminal services can provide support for the few legacy apps that are not going to be ported to a web-based design within the next 4 years...
... compiler technology, combined with ever increasing cpu speed is gradually making optimisation a non-issue for most situations.
Processing power is cheaper than programmer time, and increases at an exponential rate.
As this trend continues, requirement for optimised code will only lessen. If you spend a month trying to get a 10% speed increase by optimisation, you're barely keeping up with hardware advances...
Sure, there's games, etc that need quick code, but even then, the old axiom "90% of the time is spent in 10% of the code" applies.
Write the 90% in a high level language of your choice, and optimise that remaining 10% *if required*. That 10% is largely covered by libraries such as directX, openGL, etc... even game developers do this these days to an extent - no longer are games written in 100% assembler. They've become too complex for that.... and are now mostly C with hotspots optimised as required.
At the end of the day, pick a language that is easy to code/debug, and suited to the particular task you are trying to accomplish.
Many corporate customers have a standard business phone they purchase for their employees.
One employee gets the virus, then everyone who visits that person's office/etc gets it on their phone as well.
So no, it might not knock out a whole phone network, but it could conceivably be used for espionage - its just another entry point into the corporate network. From the phone, the virus could conceivably attack other bluetooth devices, such as notebooks, etc...
Sounds like an "easy" way around a perimeter firewall to me...
First, they did not "remove" the browser mode. True, the option to disable spatial mode by default is "hidden" within the "GNOME Registry" (-_-), but the option is still there. And I'm sure if you weren't just looking for a reason to bash GNOME and really WANT to use GNOME, you would have heard of gTweakUI already. Or know that they've already "announced" that they will include an option in the GUI for later releases.
I'm not "looking for a reason to bash gnome".
Far from it, I'm currently looking for reasons to switch the office to it. However, braindead decisions by the development team such as this one are what keep me from seriously considering it.
If they fix this in later releases, I have no problem with it, however, as it stands, that is not the case, is it?
Second, why are the GNOME devs "arrogant" because they wanted to try something different? I think it's quite the opposite of arrogance that they didn't totally rip out browser Nautilus, even though browser and spatial are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum.
They're arrogant, because they changed the behavior on a release (as opposed to a nightly/etc) without providing a *simple* (as in out in the open setting, not hidden away in gconf somewhere) way to go back the way it was.
This is not the way to promote acceptance of your technology. Its a sure fire way to piss people off, and alienate the corporate deployment of your software.
I'll say it now, in case I haven't made myself clear: I have no problem with the gnome team trying something different. What I *do* have a problem with, is attempting to force change amongst their userbase, when change could very easily be avoided.
And what does Microsoft have to do anything? If you don't want browser mode, tough nuts. Atleast I've never run across anything that resembles spatial mode in 2k/XP
OK, in simple terms you should be able to understand: Microsoft was used as an example of one of the most arrogant software development houses known to man. Microsoft are so arrogant, they lie and cheat in court, then expect us to take them seriously. They're that arrogant, they try and impose DRM and product activation on their customers. However, they're NOT arrogant enough to impose a new user interface on their customers *without* and easy way to put it back the way it was. Hell, you can still run Program Manager in Windows XP if you're that way inclined...
... that regardless of the cpu situation, going for an AMD solution just because the CPU/chipset is supposedly faster or has bigger specs, is folly.
/me waits for the anti-intel fanboys to bite.
Seriously though... i've owned a couple of AMD (1800xp, 1.1ghz K7) and Cyrix (686-p200+) systems, and what always brings me back to intel is the chipsets.
They're (generally) rock-solid.
Solid chipset is the core of a solid, reliable system.
Doesn't matter how funky your CPU is, if your chipset sucks dick for crack, the reliability/performance of your system as a whole will be compromised.
As I've been saying for years, AMD need to either get into the chipset market themselves (witness the onboard K8 memory controller, so that even VIA can't fuck it up), or find a partner who can build a half decent chipset to go with their (don't get me wrong, very impressive) CPU.
When you want a decent reliable system, you don't want to be downloading a different set of VIA 4-in-1s for each and every application you want to run (ok, I exaggerate slightly, but thats what setting up my last AMD box felt like):D
All my intel systems have been just fine to use on the original mobo drivers/BIOS for many years...
This is exactly the sort of thing that is a clear demonstration of arrogance, as the above author claims - opening in a new window or not is easily implemented with a simple check-box option in one of the preferences somewhere.
Deciding instead to *remove* a feature that is integral to the way people work, because some "Expert" thinks they know better is just laughable.
In the Real World (tm), users have more than playing mp3s and looking at pr0n to use their computer for, so more than 2 or 3 folders, and a multi-level file structure is required to store the different types of work.
One of the first things I always did in Windows 95 explorer (once I found the option for it) was turn OFF "open folder in new window", because its a pain in the arse.
As to the whole "but a web browser is like a book!" argument... well.... my PC is like a filing cabinet. I don't want to pull files out of the filing cabinet (open in new window) until I find what I'm looking for. I'd rather sift through the open drawer (tree list at side of browser window for example), until i find what I want.
"BAD" interface design is when the implementor makes decisions on behalf of the end-user that increase work-load for *no good reason*.
"Because its bad interface design" is NOT a self-justifying reason. If it makes my work more efficient, it is not bad.
I'll bet the supporters of this crock are akin to those who think that storing every file they create under the root directory is a good idea as well, because sorting through 10,000 files in the same folder is good interface design.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm just a bit more naturally cynical. *shrug*
smash.
Just because the idea came originally from Microsoft, doesn't automatically make it bad.
I see mono as a very useful transitional technology. Write for mono. Your app will run on both Linux and Win32. As you port your apps completely to mono, you have the option to drop windows, if you like.
In the C# reference I have, (admittedly not an MS publication), it explicitly recommends NOT to use native windows functions, in an aid to portability.
Of course, if people were to just write straight for Linux/C/C++, Microsoft would lose. If they write for Mono/.net, microsoft can at least still run the ported app.
I see it as MS in damage control...
smash.
Perhaps Opera need to build a browser that works? :)
smash(yes, I used to use it).
If you don't want this to happen, set up your own mail host, or use encrypted e-mail.
This guy offered these email accounts for free, using his storage.
He can (and should be able to, imho) do whatever he likes with data stored on *his* computer.
I agree, that snooping through a user's e-mail without telling them is rude, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.
smash.
I'll just keep statically routing it over my network, effectively black-holing them.
smash.
smash.
You'll have old stock, and even if you cut a new cd for every customer, by the time it gets to them via post/etc its out of date.
Mandatory packet filtering, with the user explicity having to turn on network services is the way to go - assume ALL software is exploitable, and control the risk.
The major worms out there exploit services that no sane person should be running visible to the internet at large anwyay - at least not without knowing about it.
IE exploits are a seperate issue - i don't think that problem is going to go away any time soon, until IE gets fixed or replaced.
smash.
Fact is, if your machine has been compromised, you really don't know what may have been done to it.
As I posted earlier, these days, it really is not that difficult.
Turn on your XP firewall before you connect, then download the updates, then open up whatever ports you need (or, if you like flirting with danger, turn the firewall back off once you're patched). If you don't have a firewall, get one - unless you like causing everyone else grief every time you get owned and spew garbage over the net for a week before anyone notices, and you have to reinstall.
There's little point in asking end users nicely - they'll ignore it. As a sysadmin for an ISP for a few years, I know that 90% of your users do not read sysadmin email - we gave warning 12 months in advance of one of our old domains being turned off (due to company name change, and in .au you must have company ownership to own a .com.au), and on the day it was turned off, had users complaining that they had a heap of stationery printed that week.
Call then? At a cost in both manpower and money to the ISP? Why should the ISP have to wear the cost?
Its been in most ISP terms of service since the net began - "we reserve the right to deny service for breach of service agreement" or words to that effect.
About time it was enforced.
smash.
XP has one built in, anyone else connecting a windows box to the net without one has rocks in their head.
Seriously people, its really not that difficult.
smash.
smash.
I pay for traffic.
80% of my traffic is mail.
50% of my mail is spam.
Therefore, 40% of my bandwidth costs are spam.
Comprende?
smash.
Dumbass.
smash.
smash.
Under *nix, they don't get access to other areas of the system, and virtually every native app uses . files in the user's home directory for configuration...
Yes, its do-able, but windows key selling point is "its easy to administer!".
smash.
'Cept on the *Nix variant, you can be sure that ALL their data is stored in a single directory, under /home, as opposed to strewn throughout the filesystem...
smash.
THe differences between say, office 2k3 and Office 2000 are quite large, as is the difference between the XP user interface, and something like Windows NT/2000/98.
Outlook 2k3 for example, is very different to Outlook XP even - it looks like a completely different app...
Regardless of platform, the trend for many business apps is to shift to a web/intranet-oriented design. Even in my workplace here, where management is very resistant to change, most of our new in-house business apps are web-driven or accessible via a browser in some way.
The *biggest* hurdle i can see is file sharing, however, NFS-mount /home and you're set, really... roaming profiles and all ;)
Citrix metaframe + terminal services can provide support for the few legacy apps that are not going to be ported to a web-based design within the next 4 years...
smash.
Fact is, virtually none of my 150 users know how to use Windows, so why should Linux be any different? Its the applications that users care about.
In fact, one of the biggest excuses for them not trying is "i'm afraid I'll break something".
If they're not logged on with a root account, they can't really break anything, so if anything, Linux will be easier for them to learn, too :)
Besides, the re-training thing is just as bad when switching from Windows 98/NT to Windows XP anyway....
smash.
Need some bit of scientific code to run fast? Pay a decent c/assembly coder.
Need to get a prototype of the app running quickly in the meantime? Use C#/Java/etc...
Yes, you can use a screwdriver for many things (screws, drilling holes, prying things open, hammering nails), but its not the best tool for the job.
The same applies to programming languages...
Java has its place...
smash.
Processing power is cheaper than programmer time, and increases at an exponential rate.
As this trend continues, requirement for optimised code will only lessen. If you spend a month trying to get a 10% speed increase by optimisation, you're barely keeping up with hardware advances...
Sure, there's games, etc that need quick code, but even then, the old axiom "90% of the time is spent in 10% of the code" applies.
Write the 90% in a high level language of your choice, and optimise that remaining 10% *if required*. That 10% is largely covered by libraries such as directX, openGL, etc... even game developers do this these days to an extent - no longer are games written in 100% assembler. They've become too complex for that.... and are now mostly C with hotspots optimised as required.
At the end of the day, pick a language that is easy to code/debug, and suited to the particular task you are trying to accomplish.
smash.
Many corporate customers have a standard business phone they purchase for their employees.
One employee gets the virus, then everyone who visits that person's office/etc gets it on their phone as well.
So no, it might not knock out a whole phone network, but it could conceivably be used for espionage - its just another entry point into the corporate network. From the phone, the virus could conceivably attack other bluetooth devices, such as notebooks, etc...
Sounds like an "easy" way around a perimeter firewall to me...
smash.
Far from it, I'm currently looking for reasons to switch the office to it. However, braindead decisions by the development team such as this one are what keep me from seriously considering it.
If they fix this in later releases, I have no problem with it, however, as it stands, that is not the case, is it?
They're arrogant, because they changed the behavior on a release (as opposed to a nightly/etc) without providing a *simple* (as in out in the open setting, not hidden away in gconf somewhere) way to go back the way it was.This is not the way to promote acceptance of your technology. Its a sure fire way to piss people off, and alienate the corporate deployment of your software.
I'll say it now, in case I haven't made myself clear: I have no problem with the gnome team trying something different. What I *do* have a problem with, is attempting to force change amongst their userbase, when change could very easily be avoided.
OK, in simple terms you should be able to understand: Microsoft was used as an example of one of the most arrogant software development houses known to man. Microsoft are so arrogant, they lie and cheat in court, then expect us to take them seriously. They're that arrogant, they try and impose DRM and product activation on their customers. However, they're NOT arrogant enough to impose a new user interface on their customers *without* and easy way to put it back the way it was. Hell, you can still run Program Manager in Windows XP if you're that way inclined...smash.
Seriously though... i've owned a couple of AMD (1800xp, 1.1ghz K7) and Cyrix (686-p200+) systems, and what always brings me back to intel is the chipsets.
They're (generally) rock-solid.
Solid chipset is the core of a solid, reliable system.
Doesn't matter how funky your CPU is, if your chipset sucks dick for crack, the reliability/performance of your system as a whole will be compromised.
As I've been saying for years, AMD need to either get into the chipset market themselves (witness the onboard K8 memory controller, so that even VIA can't fuck it up), or find a partner who can build a half decent chipset to go with their (don't get me wrong, very impressive) CPU.
When you want a decent reliable system, you don't want to be downloading a different set of VIA 4-in-1s for each and every application you want to run (ok, I exaggerate slightly, but thats what setting up my last AMD box felt like) :D
All my intel systems have been just fine to use on the original mobo drivers/BIOS for many years...
smash.
This is exactly the sort of thing that is a clear demonstration of arrogance, as the above author claims - opening in a new window or not is easily implemented with a simple check-box option in one of the preferences somewhere.
Deciding instead to *remove* a feature that is integral to the way people work, because some "Expert" thinks they know better is just laughable.
Even microsoft aren't THAT arrogant.
smash.
One of the first things I always did in Windows 95 explorer (once I found the option for it) was turn OFF "open folder in new window", because its a pain in the arse.
As to the whole "but a web browser is like a book!" argument... well.... my PC is like a filing cabinet. I don't want to pull files out of the filing cabinet (open in new window) until I find what I'm looking for. I'd rather sift through the open drawer (tree list at side of browser window for example), until i find what I want.
"BAD" interface design is when the implementor makes decisions on behalf of the end-user that increase work-load for *no good reason*.
"Because its bad interface design" is NOT a self-justifying reason. If it makes my work more efficient, it is not bad.
I'll bet the supporters of this crock are akin to those who think that storing every file they create under the root directory is a good idea as well, because sorting through 10,000 files in the same folder is good interface design.
smash.
smash.