2462 is not the final release build of IE 6. I think that's IE 6 beta 2, or maybe the "public preview" that went out before XP shipped.
The shipping version of IE 6 is 6.0.2600.0. If you go to Windows Update you should be able to install it, and then after you do that install the patch.
'Gartner remains concerned that viruses and worms will continue to attack IIS until Microsoft has released a completely rewritten, thoroughly and publicly tested, new release of IIS,'
Am I the only one who thinks this is the absolute wrong thing to do? As vulnerable as IIS has proved as of late, completely rewriting any piece of software runs the risk of not only reintroducing old exploits but possibly generating new ones. IIS is a very complex piece of software with years of thorough public testing (in the form of live deployments) already in place. By completely rewriting it, you throw out that experience and start from zero.
Yeah, the same way Bill Gates "forgot" his own e-mails during testimony to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Oh, give me a break. Do you remember, off the top of your head, the content of every e-mail message you sent over a year ago? (going by the date of the linked article, 2 Nov 1998, versus the date of the mentioned message, 8 Aug 1997). I'm talking about people leaving out details of an article they just saw and could refer back to when they made the submission. I highly doubt Bill had access to his sent-items archive during the deposition.
curtS was one of the many to point out that "MSNBC has an article about a security hole you could throw a cat through."
I wonder how many of those other submitters also conveniently "forgot" to point out that the article specifically mentions that a patch was released yesterday.
If you actually go to the site and click on the "What do I need before I can register?" link, you'll see that they support both Netscape and IE on PC and Mac platforms. Only certain services require IE 5.01 or later, and that's due to differences in certificate support, not anything having to do with.NET.
You may not use the ICQ API for or in conjunction with any products having chat ability, presence indication "buddy system-like" functionality or instant messaging capabilities ("Competing Products").
So I can't use the API for a chat protocol to write a chat program. So what good is it?
The only Y2K "trouble" I heard about was from a friend of mine who, about 30 seconds before midnight, quietly slipped into the basement of his house where he was hosting a party. As he heard the partiers upstairs count down, he waited with his fingers on the master circuit breakers. As soon as they hit midnight, off went the switches. Much screaming ensued. About 15 seconds later, he switched everything back on, came upstairs, and declared the "Y2K bug" to be a hoax.
The suggestions about building in debug code and test routines and coming up with automated tests are good ones, but I really think they should be built into the existing codebase rather than starting completely from scratch. I don't know how much time you've invested in your original codebase, but from your question I'd suppose that you've already invested a lot of people-hours into it. By starting over, you throw away that investment, especially if you're just going to rebuild it in the same language anyway.
Look at the Mozilla project and how much starting over from scratch has cost them in terms of time. I'm not saying Mozilla hasn't come a long way, but rather, it's taken them a tremendously long time to do so. This is because a complete rewrite inevitably introduces new bugs and reintroduces old ones, and in the end it's usually faster and easier to work from an existing codebase.
Several good debugging tools have already been suggested by other posters, so I won't repeat them here. But if you are considering throwing out your existing code, rather than using these tools with your what you have, think long and hard before you do so and justify to yourself that it's really worth it.
When I first read the headline, I thought I saw "New Advance In Quantum Dot Com Technology." And I was remarkably confused when I read the caption thereafter.
I feel the need to point out that, despite your paranoia, not once on that page is Windows, Linux, or any other operating system specifically mentioned. To be honest, I see nothing anti-competitive about that page at all.
First let me preface this by asking, what exactly do you mean by a "UNIX internship"? Do you mean actually -developing- one of the UNIXes, or do you just mean using a UNIX-based development environment? If the latter, here's a suggestion:
During my college years I interned at 3Com's R&D center in Massachusetts for two summers. The work they do there is on carrier/enterprise-type products, so the platform for which you're developing is an embedded system, but the development environments themselves are all UNIX-based.
Further, the work I was actually doing was not development for the devices themselves; rather I was working on web-based test automation. The server was Apache on Solaris; most of the actual development was in the form of Perl scripts but it was still interesting work because it required integrating a lot of existing, very different test tools running on test machines independent of the web server itself.
IMO the schools should be teaching the concept of "portability" every bit as much as "the language". Locking students into a proprietary development environment is the anthesis of this.
That's a wonderful ideal, but I can tell you from practical experience that it just isn't feasible. I was a TA for an introductory programming course at Carnegie Mellon during my last semester. This was a course targeted at non-CS majors; the development environment was CodeWarrior on Win32. I saw enough student problems with one development environment to know that "officially" offering alternatives was out of the question.
The primary goal of an introductory course, IMO, is for students to gain a basic understanding of programming concepts and usually a particular language (in this case C++), and issues with devlopment environments are obstacles to, and distractions from, meeting that goal. Portability isn't an important concept to non-majors, and even majors shouldn't have to worry about it until getting into upper-level courses.
As a side note, one of the other benefits of supporting only one specific development environment is that the course staff can provide libraries built under/for that environment. For example, we had a prebuilt graphics library written by someone in the department to do some simple shape-drawing. Adding a graphical element to some assignments helps to make the course more interesting for students.
Everyone here seems to be awfully quick to pass judgment on the counterproposal, even considering they haven't seen it yet...
Of course the terminology used is vague. This is media coverage of the proposal, not the proposal itself. Furthermore, it's media coverage by MSNBC, which clearly has a conflict of interest and additional motivation to water down the language in the story. Personally, I would like to see the actual proposal before deciding whether or not I like it.
Yes. There's a subtle point in Valenti's comments that I think a lot of people are missing:
I do know that with broadband access and DSL, that's going to be primitive in two years. All of this technology will seem old-fashioned in two years.
The thing is, people who are screaming "But it's not practical to pirate DVDs with DeCSS!" are discounting the fact that technology has, and likely will continue to, evolve at a startling pace. Storage prices have dropped like a rock in the past five years. Net access speeds have increased, and the prices for fast connections are also dropping. So while the technology might not exist now to make DVD piracy feasible, that technology might very well come in to existence a few years down the road. From that standpoint I can understand his concerns.
Take a look at the list of defendants in the case (available here). A good number of the "Doe" defendants are not even within the United States and therefore not under the jurisdiction of any U.S. court or copyright law. So even if the judge finds that trade secrets were violated, what good will an injunction do?
BTW, notice that Slashdot is listed as "Doe" defendant number 57...
Slashdot Mirror
Serialized Development
The model from NT 3.1 -> Windows 2000
All developers on team check-in to a single main line branch
Master build lab synchs to main branch and builds and releases from that branch
Checked in defect affects everyone waiting for results
It's not vapor anymore -- both the .NET framework SDK and Visual Studio.NET have shipped.
2462 is not the final release build of IE 6. I think that's IE 6 beta 2, or maybe the "public preview" that went out before XP shipped.
The shipping version of IE 6 is 6.0.2600.0. If you go to Windows Update you should be able to install it, and then after you do that install the patch.
Am I the only one who thinks this is the absolute wrong thing to do? As vulnerable as IIS has proved as of late, completely rewriting any piece of software runs the risk of not only reintroducing old exploits but possibly generating new ones. IIS is a very complex piece of software with years of thorough public testing (in the form of live deployments) already in place. By completely rewriting it, you throw out that experience and start from zero.
Oh, give me a break. Do you remember, off the top of your head, the content of every e-mail message you sent over a year ago? (going by the date of the linked article, 2 Nov 1998, versus the date of the mentioned message, 8 Aug 1997). I'm talking about people leaving out details of an article they just saw and could refer back to when they made the submission. I highly doubt Bill had access to his sent-items archive during the deposition.
I wonder how many of those other submitters also conveniently "forgot" to point out that the article specifically mentions that a patch was released yesterday.
If you actually go to the site and click on the "What do I need before I can register?" link, you'll see that they support both Netscape and IE on PC and Mac platforms. Only certain services require IE 5.01 or later, and that's due to differences in certificate support, not anything having to do with .NET.
- He's under an NDA that will more than likely prohibit him from answering certain questions about Microsoft's future plans.
- He's a marketing guy, not a developer.
I'm seeing a lot of questions getting modded up to 4 or 5 that he probably can't answer for one or both of the reasons listed above.So I can't use the API for a chat protocol to write a chat program. So what good is it?
Blizzard's now saying the problem has been fixed. http://www.battle.net/forums/diablo2-realmstatus/p osts/ac/52.shtml
The only Y2K "trouble" I heard about was from a friend of mine who, about 30 seconds before midnight, quietly slipped into the basement of his house where he was hosting a party. As he heard the partiers upstairs count down, he waited with his fingers on the master circuit breakers. As soon as they hit midnight, off went the switches. Much screaming ensued. About 15 seconds later, he switched everything back on, came upstairs, and declared the "Y2K bug" to be a hoax.
Look at the Mozilla project and how much starting over from scratch has cost them in terms of time. I'm not saying Mozilla hasn't come a long way, but rather, it's taken them a tremendously long time to do so. This is because a complete rewrite inevitably introduces new bugs and reintroduces old ones, and in the end it's usually faster and easier to work from an existing codebase.
Several good debugging tools have already been suggested by other posters, so I won't repeat them here. But if you are considering throwing out your existing code, rather than using these tools with your what you have, think long and hard before you do so and justify to yourself that it's really worth it.
When I first read the headline, I thought I saw "New Advance In Quantum Dot Com Technology." And I was remarkably confused when I read the caption thereafter.
I feel the need to point out that, despite your paranoia, not once on that page is Windows, Linux, or any other operating system specifically mentioned. To be honest, I see nothing anti-competitive about that page at all.
During my college years I interned at 3Com's R&D center in Massachusetts for two summers. The work they do there is on carrier/enterprise-type products, so the platform for which you're developing is an embedded system, but the development environments themselves are all UNIX-based.
Further, the work I was actually doing was not development for the devices themselves; rather I was working on web-based test automation. The server was Apache on Solaris; most of the actual development was in the form of Perl scripts but it was still interesting work because it required integrating a lot of existing, very different test tools running on test machines independent of the web server itself.
-Kevin
That's a wonderful ideal, but I can tell you from practical experience that it just isn't feasible. I was a TA for an introductory programming course at Carnegie Mellon during my last semester. This was a course targeted at non-CS majors; the development environment was CodeWarrior on Win32. I saw enough student problems with one development environment to know that "officially" offering alternatives was out of the question.
The primary goal of an introductory course, IMO, is for students to gain a basic understanding of programming concepts and usually a particular language (in this case C++), and issues with devlopment environments are obstacles to, and distractions from, meeting that goal. Portability isn't an important concept to non-majors, and even majors shouldn't have to worry about it until getting into upper-level courses.
As a side note, one of the other benefits of supporting only one specific development environment is that the course staff can provide libraries built under/for that environment. For example, we had a prebuilt graphics library written by someone in the department to do some simple shape-drawing. Adding a graphical element to some assignments helps to make the course more interesting for students.
Of course the terminology used is vague. This is media coverage of the proposal, not the proposal itself. Furthermore, it's media coverage by MSNBC, which clearly has a conflict of interest and additional motivation to water down the language in the story. Personally, I would like to see the actual proposal before deciding whether or not I like it.
I do know that with broadband access and DSL, that's going to be primitive in two years. All of this technology will seem old-fashioned in two years.
The thing is, people who are screaming "But it's not practical to pirate DVDs with DeCSS!" are discounting the fact that technology has, and likely will continue to, evolve at a startling pace. Storage prices have dropped like a rock in the past five years. Net access speeds have increased, and the prices for fast connections are also dropping. So while the technology might not exist now to make DVD piracy feasible, that technology might very well come in to existence a few years down the road. From that standpoint I can understand his concerns.
BTW, notice that Slashdot is listed as "Doe" defendant number 57...