The majority of people can't count to 10 and believe the universe started 6000 years ago, but that's not the problem with modern science, that's just their inertia.
That's fine, but it pretty much mutes your point considering that even Microsoft still writes the vast majority of it's programs in C++.
Windows has been aggressively moving into.NET on all fronts, and is introducing.NET all over the place: as a way to interface the OS (does Linux come with a consistent set of interfaces like this for all parts of the platform, or is it still all based on the archaic filesystem interface), as a way to interface all their applications, in Windows Mobile, in XBOX, in Zune, in Silverlight, and you're also recently getting driver kits that let you write managed code in user-mode.
That's great, but how does that change the fact that.NET doesn't solve the dependency hell that still can happen with the non-managed C/C++ programs that comprise probably 90%+ of all the software written for the platform?
External developers don't have much excuse for not moving into.NET, other than their reluctance to learn new technologies.
Or the fact that C/C++ still works just fine for them and they see no need to fix something that isn't broken from their perspective?
You must be mentally still in the 1980s because I haven't seen a single instance of DLL hell for the last 15 years.
Then you've been lucky. I've seen it numerous times over the recent years with programs like Avisynth, ffdshow, etc.
In case you missed that, there has been this thing called ".NET" evolving for, like, the past 7 years, which had essentially solved the problem once and for good.
Sure, if you are writing in C#. The vast majority of Windows applications are written in C/C++ so your attempt at one-upping me falls flat on it's face.
The problem isn't that you can't open a Word 2007 ODF document in another ODF compliant program, it's that it refuses to open to other program's ODF documents. Hence why the summary says they are compliant but not being interoperable. Interoperability is a two-way street.
If I choose to pay them for doing so, does that make me a sheep of some sort?
Of course. IF you watch or listen to anything made by the "mainstream" movie and music industries you clearly aren't as hip and cool as the non-conformists who only watch/listen to indy garbage.
Is gaming the only application that needs or benefits from high end graphics?
In the context of a home desktop (which was what the GGP was talking about) most likely it is one of the few if only places that you need high end graphics. Most people aren't using their home desktops as render farms or anything else that would require high end graphics card support.
The BSOD joke stopped being funny when Windows 2000 was the OS to have (Unless you were subjected to ME. If so, I pity you). XP was solid. 2003 was solid.
Yes, once Windows 2000 came out there was never BSODs ever again. Oh wait...
2 girls 1 cup was such a letdown after hearing all the build up about it. It was so fake looking as you can clearly tell it was just chocolate soft serve.
There is no flamebait. Pretty much any of the most important, open protocols in use today had their implementation released under a BSD/MIT-like license. Care to name anything remotely approaching the importance of things such as Berkeley sockets, Kerberos, etc that are both widely accepted and released as a GPL implementation? I'm guessing not.
So how awesome are the nVidia drivers on OpenBSD? You have 64-bit versions, right? Oh wait, I guess not. You'll have to stick with sucky 3D performance I guess.
Exactly what do you need 3d performance on OpenBSD with? I seriously doubt the person you were responding to was using OpenBSD as a gaming platform and as such they probably couldn't care less.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of people can't count to 10 and believe the universe started 6000 years ago, but that's not the problem with modern science, that's just their inertia.
That's fine, but it pretty much mutes your point considering that even Microsoft still writes the vast majority of it's programs in C++.
Windows has been aggressively moving into .NET on all fronts, and is introducing .NET all over the place: as a way to interface the OS (does Linux come with a consistent set of interfaces like this for all parts of the platform, or is it still all based on the archaic filesystem interface), as a way to interface all their applications, in Windows Mobile, in XBOX, in Zune, in Silverlight, and you're also recently getting driver kits that let you write managed code in user-mode.
That's great, but how does that change the fact that .NET doesn't solve the dependency hell that still can happen with the non-managed C/C++ programs that comprise probably 90%+ of all the software written for the platform?
External developers don't have much excuse for not moving into .NET, other than their reluctance to learn new technologies.
Or the fact that C/C++ still works just fine for them and they see no need to fix something that isn't broken from their perspective?
You must be mentally still in the 1980s because I haven't seen a single instance of DLL hell for the last 15 years.
Then you've been lucky. I've seen it numerous times over the recent years with programs like Avisynth, ffdshow, etc.
In case you missed that, there has been this thing called ".NET" evolving for, like, the past 7 years, which had essentially solved the problem once and for good.
Sure, if you are writing in C#. The vast majority of Windows applications are written in C/C++ so your attempt at one-upping me falls flat on it's face.
The problem with placing the liability upon the OS manufacturer is also a mistaken argument
Why? If it wasn't for a flaw in the OS itself these people wouldn't have had their computers infected in the first place.
Because it's not Google's job to prop up the BBC's revenues?
The problem isn't that you can't open a Word 2007 ODF document in another ODF compliant program, it's that it refuses to open to other program's ODF documents. Hence why the summary says they are compliant but not being interoperable. Interoperability is a two-way street.
I have two words for you: dependency hell.
You mean like this and this?
If I choose to pay them for doing so, does that make me a sheep of some sort?
Of course. IF you watch or listen to anything made by the "mainstream" movie and music industries you clearly aren't as hip and cool as the non-conformists who only watch/listen to indy garbage.
Whoosh?
Is gaming the only application that needs or benefits from high end graphics?
In the context of a home desktop (which was what the GGP was talking about) most likely it is one of the few if only places that you need high end graphics. Most people aren't using their home desktops as render farms or anything else that would require high end graphics card support.
The BSOD joke stopped being funny when Windows 2000 was the OS to have (Unless you were subjected to ME. If so, I pity you). XP was solid. 2003 was solid.
Yes, once Windows 2000 came out there was never BSODs ever again. Oh wait...
I thought the best way to secure a Microsoft product was to never install and run it?
2 girls 1 cup was such a letdown after hearing all the build up about it. It was so fake looking as you can clearly tell it was just chocolate soft serve.
But those people who want to bypass those filters are just trying to score child porn and do eviiiiiiiiiiiil terrorist things.
There is no flamebait. Pretty much any of the most important, open protocols in use today had their implementation released under a BSD/MIT-like license. Care to name anything remotely approaching the importance of things such as Berkeley sockets, Kerberos, etc that are both widely accepted and released as a GPL implementation? I'm guessing not.
So how awesome are the nVidia drivers on OpenBSD? You have 64-bit versions, right? Oh wait, I guess not. You'll have to stick with sucky 3D performance I guess.
Exactly what do you need 3d performance on OpenBSD with? I seriously doubt the person you were responding to was using OpenBSD as a gaming platform and as such they probably couldn't care less.
Microsoft doesn't have that experience, because they don't build systems.
So the Xbox, Xbox 360 and Zune are what now?
Why would you be running Windows on your toaster?
I would guess that they are just looking for files that are overly random.
How can something be overly random? It's either random or it's not.
If it finds TruCrypt data, that's not a good sign for the theoretical randomness of data.
No, it just means there is a flaw in TruCrypt's implementation.
I wouldn't use a slashvertisement as the basis of my argument if I were you.
Go to the goatse man's website and learn about doing anal stretching exercises so they don't rip your anus to shreds in jail.
How exactly are radio/wifi/wimax/bluetooth at all relevant in relation to a motion capture camera?
I'm an action blockbuster producer you insensitive clod!
What is newsworthy in the fact that a less tested and less stable filesystem is slower than filesystems that are more mature, stable and well-tested?
Don't you love it when people throw around the word irony and don't understand what the word actually means?