This is incorrect. I was wrong. I just tried messing around with Word 2003's XML capabililty and it actually looks quite good. It makes the round trip no problem. And the structure is fairly reasonable. I didn't try manipulating any tables or anything. Certainly it's not perfect but I have to admit that I was wholely wrong. Word DOES make the XML -> EDIT ->XML round-trip.
You're a little wrong. Structured Storage is just a "filesystem within a file". The streams within the Structured Storage file contains the real information. Those streams are crude serializations of the main text stream and various tables.
But I your instinct is correct because the XML capability of Word is not what people seem to think it is. People tend to think that if you export to "XML" that you can manipulate it and then reimport and see the changes and retain all of the nice formatting. That is not true and MS is getting a lot of milage out of splitting that hair.
The last time I looked it didn't look like Word could make the round trip between Word's internal representation and XML. You can import and XML file and you can export programmatically constructed bits but you CANNOT EDIT the document and then export the whole document as XML such that you can manipulate it and then reimport the XML and end up with what you started minus the changes. Without this "round-trip" capability Word's XML capability is basically useless for many apps.
Not burying functionality into invisible menus is good UI design.
Actually I don't think I agree with that. The alternate menu has options that under regular operation should never be used. So I think they should be "hidden". If you don't know those menu options exist you probably shouldn't be messing around with them.
I was trying to think of an excuse to buy a Mini. I've been asking my mother if she would use it. The problem was where to put it. After reading this artical it became obvious. I have a fairly new WEGA 20" Sony Flatscreen TV. If I get the wireless mouse/keyboard she can just use it with the TV. Does anyone know if three is an adapter to use a Mini with your TV? Does that require DVI?
Just out of curiosity I've checked Yahoo! finance and AFAICT TiVo was profitable this year and has almost a 100 million in cash. Can someone explain to me where the "half billion" in net losses is coming from?
I've never programmed in RPC directly, but I do know that it has been a horrible nightmare in terms of security for both the MS and UNIX platforms for many years.
You can't make an open ended statement like that and not provide an explaination.
DCE/RPC (which is what MSRPC basically is) provides integrity and confidentiality using the session key. If you don't properly check input and then yes you're going to have buffer overruns. If you want to program like that use Java.
Other than being a "community" the Open Source / Free Software groups are not "Communist" because they exists in a free market. Someone can always come up with their own code and sell it.
Big companies have had no problem selling crappy code for big $$$. Now they're bent that people are discovering free alternatives that work as well or better. They decided to rule from the top-down and now they're paying for it. They'll just have to make their products actually good if they wish to be successful.
This is hilarious. The second one down on the left reads:
"This book suggests the earth is spherical. The shape of the earth is controvesial. Not all people..."
Is this for real? Are there really people that claim the earth is flat? I can't believe someone could actually make that claim and remain free to walk around.
Also, I seriously doubt any science text book would "suggest" that the earth is spherical.
When they see a picture of IIS on TV flying around the earth what do they say? Do they claim they're all actually different spacecraft flying by every few hours?
Why hasn't Linux, which appears to be floundering aimlessly, focused its efforts on being more like OS X than Windows?
Why do you think the sole purpose of Linux is as a desktop OS. In truth the vast majority of Linux installs are the headless file spewers in the Internet.
What's wrong with Unix is that people don't know what's wrong with it. Let's review a few of the claims posted here:
"VMS you can set people to have read/write/execute and delete. in unix if people have write, they can write it to "null" *grumble*."
Standard Unix permissions do not model the concept of access control well. They were considered elegant at the time given the constraints but now they're just an oversimplification that results in quantized access control capabilities (and the hole you point out). So patching an oversimplification with another one is not a good solution IMO. We can afford to use more than a few bytes to control access and that mechanism should not be specific to file descriptors.
Someone pointed out they didn't like where programs were installed. They suggested one solution was to put everything in a single directory and use links so it's a nice neat package. I don't think we should care where individual files or directories are located. When a program get's installed the system should be sophisticated enough to track what it did so that it can undo it on demand.
Another user believes all config files should follow the same format. I don't think we should be using config files at all. Just allocate data structures from a memory mapped file and write a little menu/form based program to manipulate that data in an intuative way. Then make sure you can export and import the data to and from plain text so we can still do batch processing with scripts.
In general there isn't *that* much wrong with Unix. It's *supposed* to be simple. That's why it's good. MS is much more sophisticated but the complexity has found it's way into lower level privledged areas and now we're paying for it by being required to patch millions of systems every couple of days. I do think there could be changes that would make Unix much better but they're specific to low level sorts of things like the filesystem, shared memory, and synchronization syscalls.
The question we should really be asking is "What's broken with Libc?".
because 99% of exploits out there specifically target flaws in IE. There's no doubt in my mind that Firefox has just as many flaws but I would much rather have the lesser known more obscure implementation. When Firefox gets enough market share to attract exploits I'm moving to Opera.
On Windows, if you type a sequence of characters quickly in a list control (such as in a file dialog) the focus jumps to an item that begins with those letters. Will GTK every implement that?
Also, is there is a way to change the standard file dialog without recompiling everything? I want to set my own custom file dialog.
BTW, there's usually a *reason* that dependencies get updated. Have you ever considered that?
Oh, ok. So what is the *reason* for requiring xft and glibc 2.3? Why is xft *required*. What is so special about libc 2.3 vs 2.2?
P.S. I really like your attitude of entitlement to open source developers' time.
Well it's true. If the OSS developer chooses to only support a particular flavor of a particular operating system then I suppose that is their right. I didn't think there was anything crucial in xft or glibc 2.3 that would have required extra effort to do without.
Personally I have 8 opensource projects 6 of which are known to compile and run on most flavors of *nix and windows and 1 just lacks proper build/run scripts for windows.
Honestly. If you can't be bothered to upgrade your OS in two years, then it's time to learn the wonderful command
make
First, there's no doubt in my mind that I've been coding C probably longer than you've been alive (and I'm not suggesting that I'm old).
Second, I just stated that I have been building.src.rpms ('.src' means "source code" as in what you run 'make' on) but newer apps are starting to require stuff that should probably be a optional (e.g. xft).
Third, do you really expect people to upgrade their entire *operating system* every 2 years? Most people *never* upgrade their operating system. Now, all of those people with old exploitable versions of Mozilla are basically screwed. Thanks. It's a lot easier for the developer to permit the application to build properly on older systems than to force some poor smuck to try and compile something. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if Firefox can even be compiled on glibc 2.2 systems. Otherwise there would probably be binaries in the contrib directory.
Does anyone know where I can get a glibc 2.2 build? Will it even work on systems that weren't released within the last 2 years?
As a side note, I find it pretty annoying that I'm getting left behind with my RH 7.3 system. I was getting by ok building.src.rpms but I'm starting to run into problems. I just wanna get s**t done but I'm going to have to "upgrade" now just because some bum thinks everyone has xft.
The last time this came up someone posted an interesting idea. If the USPTO can't reasonably review all the patent applications simply accept them all. But change the expiration to say 2 years with an option to renew the patent for the full 17 year and make the renewal cost a considerable amount of money (eg $40,000). This will give legitimite patents the protection they need to develop their idea enough to know if it's worth more effot. It wouldn't stop people from filing frivolous patents but the submarine patents would probably disappear almost entirely.
Apparently Sun has been able to communicate with Linux user's over the Internet. They sent them the following message:
"We're about to release Solaris as Open Source. We're going to completely take over the OS market and if you resist us we're going to sue you for patent infringement. But we don't want to do that. So really the best thing for you to do when we relase it is to stop using Linux."
I accedentally deleted a bunch of source files a few weeks ago. After pounding my fist on the desk for 10 minutes I googled for 'linux recover file' and found the 'recover' program:
http://recover.sourceforge.net/linux/recover/
To my amazement it actually worked 100%. I recovered all the files I deleted. Install that program, try a test run, and remember it so you can run it asap after deleting something by accedent. Those inodes are still there so if the blocks they point to aren't overwritten you can very likely recover those files.
Slashdot Mirror
This is incorrect. I was wrong. I just tried messing around with Word 2003's XML capabililty and it actually looks quite good. It makes the round trip no problem. And the structure is fairly reasonable. I didn't try manipulating any tables or anything. Certainly it's not perfect but I have to admit that I was wholely wrong. Word DOES make the XML -> EDIT ->XML round-trip.
You're a little wrong. Structured Storage is just a "filesystem within a file". The streams within the Structured Storage file contains the real information. Those streams are crude serializations of the main text stream and various tables.
But I your instinct is correct because the XML capability of Word is not what people seem to think it is. People tend to think that if you export to "XML" that you can manipulate it and then reimport and see the changes and retain all of the nice formatting. That is not true and MS is getting a lot of milage out of splitting that hair.
The last time I looked it didn't look like Word could make the round trip between Word's internal representation and XML. You can import and XML file and you can export programmatically constructed bits but you CANNOT EDIT the document and then export the whole document as XML such that you can manipulate it and then reimport the XML and end up with what you started minus the changes. Without this "round-trip" capability Word's XML capability is basically useless for many apps.
Not burying functionality into invisible menus is good UI design.
Actually I don't think I agree with that. The alternate menu has options that under regular operation should never be used. So I think they should be "hidden". If you don't know those menu options exist you probably shouldn't be messing around with them.
I've done "a lot" of Java development on Linux and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm having a little trouble getting to the apple store but is the video quality good after being converted? Also, what about audio?
I was trying to think of an excuse to buy a Mini. I've been asking my mother if she would use it. The problem was where to put it. After reading this artical it became obvious. I have a fairly new WEGA 20" Sony Flatscreen TV. If I get the wireless mouse/keyboard she can just use it with the TV. Does anyone know if three is an adapter to use a Mini with your TV? Does that require DVI?
Why the hell is this drivel modded "Interesting". Wiping out the native american indians is "fundamental group behavior"? This guy is a psycho.
Just out of curiosity I've checked Yahoo! finance and AFAICT TiVo was profitable this year and has almost a 100 million in cash. Can someone explain to me where the "half billion" in net losses is coming from?
I have a faster way of guaranteeing a unique 128-bit identifier given a unique MAC address.
Yeah, and what about all the other UUIDs generated on that host?
I've never programmed in RPC directly, but I do know that it has been a horrible nightmare in terms of security for both the MS and UNIX platforms for many years.
You can't make an open ended statement like that and not provide an explaination.
DCE/RPC (which is what MSRPC basically is) provides integrity and confidentiality using the session key. If you don't properly check input and then yes you're going to have buffer overruns. If you want to program like that use Java.
Other than being a "community" the Open Source / Free Software groups are not "Communist" because they exists in a free market. Someone can always come up with their own code and sell it.
Big companies have had no problem selling crappy code for big $$$. Now they're bent that people are discovering free alternatives that work as well or better. They decided to rule from the top-down and now they're paying for it. They'll just have to make their products actually good if they wish to be successful.
And that is the way it should be.
This is hilarious. The second one down on the left reads:
..."
"This book suggests the earth is spherical. The shape of the earth is controvesial. Not all people
Is this for real? Are there really people that claim the earth is flat? I can't believe someone could actually make that claim and remain free to walk around.
Also, I seriously doubt any science text book would "suggest" that the earth is spherical.
When they see a picture of IIS on TV flying around the earth what do they say? Do they claim they're all actually different spacecraft flying by every few hours?
Why hasn't Linux, which appears to be floundering aimlessly, focused its efforts on being more like OS X than Windows?
Why do you think the sole purpose of Linux is as a desktop OS. In truth the vast majority of Linux installs are the headless file spewers in the Internet.
What's wrong with Unix is that people don't know what's wrong with it. Let's review a few of the claims posted here:
"VMS you can set people to have read/write/execute and delete. in unix if people have write, they can write it to "null" *grumble*."
Standard Unix permissions do not model the concept of access control well. They were considered elegant at the time given the constraints but now they're just an oversimplification that results in quantized access control capabilities (and the hole you point out). So patching an oversimplification with another one is not a good solution IMO. We can afford to use more than a few bytes to control access and that mechanism should not be specific to file descriptors.
Someone pointed out they didn't like where programs were installed. They suggested one solution was to put everything in a single directory and use links so it's a nice neat package. I don't think we should care where individual files or directories are located. When a program get's installed the system should be sophisticated enough to track what it did so that it can undo it on demand.
Another user believes all config files should follow the same format. I don't think we should be using config files at all. Just allocate data structures from a memory mapped file and write a little menu/form based program to manipulate that data in an intuative way. Then make sure you can export and import the data to and from plain text so we can still do batch processing with scripts.
In general there isn't *that* much wrong with Unix. It's *supposed* to be simple. That's why it's good. MS is much more sophisticated but the complexity has found it's way into lower level privledged areas and now we're paying for it by being required to patch millions of systems every couple of days. I do think there could be changes that would make Unix much better but they're specific to low level sorts of things like the filesystem, shared memory, and synchronization syscalls.
The question we should really be asking is "What's broken with Libc?".
So what is the probability of the earth being hit by this "cone"?
because 99% of exploits out there specifically target flaws in IE. There's no doubt in my mind that Firefox has just as many flaws but I would much rather have the lesser known more obscure implementation. When Firefox gets enough market share to attract exploits I'm moving to Opera.
On Windows, if you type a sequence of characters quickly in a list control (such as in a file dialog) the focus jumps to an item that begins with those letters. Will GTK every implement that?
Also, is there is a way to change the standard file dialog without recompiling everything? I want to set my own custom file dialog.
BTW, there's usually a *reason* that dependencies get updated. Have you ever considered that?
Oh, ok. So what is the *reason* for requiring xft and glibc 2.3? Why is xft *required*. What is so special about libc 2.3 vs 2.2?
P.S. I really like your attitude of entitlement to open source developers' time.
Well it's true. If the OSS developer chooses to only support a particular flavor of a particular operating system then I suppose that is their right. I didn't think there was anything crucial in xft or glibc 2.3 that would have required extra effort to do without.
Personally I have 8 opensource projects 6 of which are known to compile and run on most flavors of *nix and windows and 1 just lacks proper build/run scripts for windows.
Honestly. If you can't be bothered to upgrade your OS in two years, then it's time to learn the wonderful command
.src.rpms ('.src' means "source code" as in what you run 'make' on) but newer apps are starting to require stuff that should probably be a optional (e.g. xft).
make
First, there's no doubt in my mind that I've been coding C probably longer than you've been alive (and I'm not suggesting that I'm old).
Second, I just stated that I have been building
Third, do you really expect people to upgrade their entire *operating system* every 2 years? Most people *never* upgrade their operating system. Now, all of those people with old exploitable versions of Mozilla are basically screwed. Thanks. It's a lot easier for the developer to permit the application to build properly on older systems than to force some poor smuck to try and compile something. At this point I'm beginning to wonder if Firefox can even be compiled on glibc 2.2 systems. Otherwise there would probably be binaries in the contrib directory.
Does anyone know where I can get a glibc 2.2 build? Will it even work on systems that weren't released within the last 2 years?
.src.rpms but I'm starting to run into problems. I just wanna get s**t done but I'm going to have to "upgrade" now just because some bum thinks everyone has xft.
As a side note, I find it pretty annoying that I'm getting left behind with my RH 7.3 system. I was getting by ok building
The last time this came up someone posted an interesting idea. If the USPTO can't reasonably review all the patent applications simply accept them all. But change the expiration to say 2 years with an option to renew the patent for the full 17 year and make the renewal cost a considerable amount of money (eg $40,000). This will give legitimite patents the protection they need to develop their idea enough to know if it's worth more effot. It wouldn't stop people from filing frivolous patents but the submarine patents would probably disappear almost entirely.
Apparently Sun has been able to communicate with Linux user's over the Internet. They sent them the following message:
"We're about to release Solaris as Open Source. We're going to completely take over the OS market and if you resist us we're going to sue you for patent infringement. But we don't want to do that. So really the best thing for you to do when we relase it is to stop using Linux."
No, I'm still here. Thanks for asking.
I accedentally deleted a bunch of source files a few weeks ago. After pounding my fist on the desk for 10 minutes I googled for 'linux recover file' and found the 'recover' program:
http://recover.sourceforge.net/linux/recover/
To my amazement it actually worked 100%. I recovered all the files I deleted. Install that program, try a test run, and remember it so you can run it asap after deleting something by accedent. Those inodes are still there so if the blocks they point to aren't overwritten you can very likely recover those files.