An inaccuracy in this blog article: InDOS was just a byte at a memory location. I think the important critical section was the INT 2Ah one introduced in DOS 3.1 which was a function call that Win386 could hook and did.
Personally I think the idea of fear-based management is just fundamentally flawed in the days where people are not dumb automata. In fact I think fear-based management leading to more and more surveillance is classic (see the example of TSA for one example).
The sad thing is to be honest that fear-based management is indeed fundamentally flawed. Next step would be to hire better developers with passion for the job.
Indeed, I think how software patents was allowed in the first place is a court ruling (not by the Supreme Court) saying mathematical algorithms were patentable if executed on a computer.
Ah, the disaster that is the move from real to protected mode. Summary: First fiasco was that in year 1982 MS ignored the announcement of the 286 around the time and proceeds to develop a real-mode multitasking version of DOS, and only in around 1985 when IBM refused to license it that it was realized it was a mistake. And while the resulting OS/2 1.x sucked and lost it's chance with Windows 3.x (which was incompatible and both designed for 16-bit protected mode), second fiasco was when MS broke the JDA with IBM in year 1991 before the 32-bit OS/2 2.0 (which had been developing since year 1989) was even given a chance. Then later on MS attacked OS/2, particularly in the Wrap era when MS resorted to tactics like astroturfing (look up "OS/2 Microsoft Munchkins" for example). Imagine if MS embraced OS/2 instead. Both fiascos delayed the move to protected mode by years, not to mention MS's attacks on DR-DOS as OS/2 did not depend on DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
That is intentional. Firefox 3.6 is not under rolling release and is still receiving security updates, Firefox 4 and later is.
An inaccuracy in this blog article: InDOS was just a byte at a memory location. I think the important critical section was the INT 2Ah one introduced in DOS 3.1 which was a function call that Win386 could hook and did.
Well, Larry Page recently became CEO at Google, which is not a bean counter. Probably they are acting like Steve Jobs.
To be more precise, legacy PR based on controlling the message. "PR 2.0" don't have these fundamental problems
Well, this article was a paper about how to detect them
I have been saying legacy PR based on controlling the message is fundamentally flawed for a while now.
Don't forget XSS attacks. XHTML can help here by its strict error handing, and I have suggested logging XML errors to a server before.
MS in fact already have Forefront Client Protection as the corporate version of MSE.
Much better idea would be to use the same kind of storage and emphasize *cost-performance*. Particularly I am thinking of the quad-socket market.
FYI:
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1142220 (note DrPizza is Peter Bright)
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/hodm3/iama_editorinchief_of_ars_technica_sister_site_to/c1x2j4r
And the Xeons the 6200 only sometimes beat are 18 months old; new Xeons ship next quarter.
In the dual-socket market. In the quad-socket market it is a different matter.
Sorry, didn't realize other vendors are using it. If so ignore this.
I am thinking Intel should sell the Itanium division back to HP once they are sure no other vendors are using it.
Well, MS was also to blame:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2529332&cid=38078676
I think the America Invents Act already does this, though unfortunately it do not address the issue of congressional appropriations.
Don't forget that browser was one of the first (in 1995) to support the CSS drafts that existed at the time (first dating back to October 1994!).
Personally I think the idea of fear-based management is just fundamentally flawed in the days where people are not dumb automata. In fact I think fear-based management leading to more and more surveillance is classic (see the example of TSA for one example).
And probably compensate them using things like options. This way the need for things like lay-offs are reduced.
The sad thing is to be honest that fear-based management is indeed fundamentally flawed. Next step would be to hire better developers with passion for the job.
Indeed, I think how software patents was allowed in the first place is a court ruling (not by the Supreme Court) saying mathematical algorithms were patentable if executed on a computer.
Yea, I know it is too late. The good news is that the x64 transition went much better.
Ah, the disaster that is the move from real to protected mode.
Summary: First fiasco was that in year 1982 MS ignored the announcement of the 286 around the time and proceeds to develop a real-mode multitasking version of DOS, and only in around 1985 when IBM refused to license it that it was realized it was a mistake. And while the resulting OS/2 1.x sucked and lost it's chance with Windows 3.x (which was incompatible and both designed for 16-bit protected mode), second fiasco was when MS broke the JDA with IBM in year 1991 before the 32-bit OS/2 2.0 (which had been developing since year 1989) was even given a chance. Then later on MS attacked OS/2, particularly in the Wrap era when MS resorted to tactics like astroturfing (look up "OS/2 Microsoft Munchkins" for example). Imagine if MS embraced OS/2 instead. Both fiascos delayed the move to protected mode by years, not to mention MS's attacks on DR-DOS as OS/2 did not depend on DOS.
I once suggested a similar idea:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3161455
To make things worse, some of the patents asserted are necessary for interoperablity with Windows in the first place! Guess which ones I refer to?
Don't forget Intel pricing Xeon MP at thousand of dollars per CPU while AMD rags about the lack of this "4P tax".