Why don't somebody reverse engineer an exploit for the Apache server or the Linux kernel? Should be very easy, because the patches are all open source. But somehow you can reverse engineer the binary blob patches from MS for new exploits?
LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.
I'm used Visual Studio 2003 and now I'm using Visual Studio 2008. I'm missing really very useful tools that I knew for years in Eclipse. Refactoring comes in mind, navigation in the code, source code formatting and automatic generation of code. Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it. Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all, as far as I can remember. Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.
As far as I have observed, the only advantage for Visual Studio is the tightly integration which the rest of the Microsoft products, like Office, SQLServer, IIS, ASP.NET. But I couldn't find anything that I can't get from Java, which works on every platform and it's free.
What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?
I think I don't understand every part of that sentence. I'm using Java applications every day, some are SWT based, some are Swing based. There are not worse or slower then, for example, Firefox or Openoffice.org. It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it, but either you use a different Look&Feel or you use SWT which will use the native look just like Mono/GTK#.
Furthermore, because of the maturity of Java it offers way more tools for the developers, both in terms of available frameworks and the tools (like ant, maven, Eclipse RCP).
Why should I leverage C#/Mono for which the company behind it have no intention to make C#/.NET really open source with an open community and the only security I would have is some kind of "promise" from a market dominating company which have a history of being anti-competitive which whatever means possible?
I'm using C#/.NET right now for a project written in ASP.NET. We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans. The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.
Interesting to note that C#3.0, C#4.0 and LINQ are not ECMA standards yet. What is the road plan from Microsoft to standardize those?
ECMA 334 and CLI is a small subset of what you call C# and what Mono is implementing. What about.NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?
If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on, which are completely free, which out any patents and are community controlled? There are available today, well tested, have a lot more tools and libraries as C#/Mono. In addition, you are not using a tool that is constantly behind the one company that is controlling all aspects of C# and.NET.
The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place? The only reason for what Mono is good, is a replacement for.NET. But that's not going to happen, because MS have no interest in making C#/.NET available to other platforms than Windows.
You are right, MS is interested that anyone using C#/.NET everywhere; but only if they are using it on Windows.
How about Visual Paradigm? Runs flawless on Windows and Linux as far as I can tell. Furthermore, OpenOffice.org and Firefox are not faster then either Visual Paradigm or Eclipse.
So just don't buy an iPad? If I would buy me some hardware and the guy said I need to buy some stupid stuff with it because it's some kind of policy than I would just call him crazy and walk out of the store.
Mod me down I don't care. So it's the 1454355436 time that the IIS server is hacked, while all the other servers are save and sound. Is it because the IIS server is the most used one? Last time I checked Apache is running 70% of all web servers.
Maybe next time you should not listen to the MS drones and the "get the facts" FUD sites and set up a nice Apache+Linux or *BSD web server. There are not only cheaper, easier so maintain, and they will not be hacked every week.
A big fad ROFL. I really rolled laughing on the floor. That is exactly how soft links are working.
Make a folder in your $HOME called "Pictures", open that folder. Now plug in your USB hard drive, open it. Drag&Drop the folder with your additional pictures from the hard drive in your "Pictures" folder at $HOME. Now choose to create a link. Voila, you have a Windows 7 style "Libraries".
Btw, since Linux mount the hard disk not as a random letter (i.e. D: or E: or H:) but with the name you give for the hard disk (for example, my usb flash have the name 'usbpictures', it will mount the flash on/media/usbpictures) the link will stay valid whenever you plug the same usb hard disk in.
Microsoft is really good at selling 1970 technology under different names to people. Hurray for the marketing.
Why is it that, anyway? I remember Windows has introduced shortcuts which behaved like soft links but were some special file with more information. Why they made a more complicated feature that have the same functionality as soft links? More complicated, because the shortcuts were not transparent as links are. They only worked in Explorer - Was that the reasoning to introduce shortcuts instead of using links? Because they only working in Explorer, but links can work with any third-party application?
In Gnome or Kde to make a soft link you just drag&drop a file or a folder and than you can choose to create a link.
What are you talking about? In my $HOME I have Documents, Music, Videos and Downloads. I go to Music and all is in one place, sorted by the Artist and by Album. The Music folder is a soft link to a different partition as the Documents is a soft link to a Truecrypt container, because I like to save my documents encrypted.
Soft links are working transparent to every application, so I can use file managers or other applications. If I need to backup I just copy it over or I use tools like rsync.
Why you don't just use soft links to folders? I have my music, videos and my documents all on sepereated partitions, too, but I just soft link everthing in my $home directory. To put my stuff in the folders it's just drag&drop the files. I don't need some "libraries" for that, it's build in in the system since 1990 and I can use every file manager I like.
> I wish I had an answer of how to fix the above problem.
How about teaching in school what science is and what a theory is all about?
A theory can't be right or wrong, a theory can only get the right or wrong predictions in a limited model. For example, the Newtons Gravitation theory have right predictions if the masses are travelling at very slow speeds but fails at speeds near the speed of light. So the SM is neither right nor wrong, but you will get some right predictions and some wrong predictions. So far the SM had only right predictions.
That is what the ID or Creationists don't get. ID is not a theory, because you can't tell if the prediction is right or wrong.
Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL.
Why you people bother with EULAs in the first place? Now, I don't know with product it was but since the woman doesn't suffer any business loss I would think it was just Adobe Photoshop or something else. I didn't agreed to any kind of EULA for over a year and I will certainly not in the foreseeable future. Why? Because I'm using Free Software and there are plenty of it available. As a side effect, these costs you nothing, too.
Now, granted, someone who needs a software to do his work maybe needs to buy a copy of Photoshop or MS Office. But 99% of the people out there just don't need it. Save the EULA BS and save your money. The last time I red an EULA I just couldn't agree to it because it's just so full of BS; how can you agree to any EULA and pay them money for it at the same time? You have an alternative, maybe not always, but often.
Never mind the other issues in China, which they have a lot, but "China isn't just "failing to crack down on copyright piracy" (per the RTFA), they have institutionalized copyright infringement for profit all over their country and it's probably a substantial slice of their GNP", so China is basically doing exact the same what America and Ireland was doing with books in the 18 and 19 century?
Maybe we should just face the true, that software in itself is worth nothing because it costs you nothing to produce? But if America is continue to export it's industry and it's currency to China, maybe the only thing of value are the so called "intellectual property" that America will have left.
Linus doesn't give Linux for free, he's giving it for Free. Meaning, you can do what ever you like with Linux and it's source code.
If MS would be opening up the code for everyone under an open license, that would be news. But until that, it's just a marketing gag to get a foot in a new market.
That's a good thing. I wish they could stop all illegal downloads of music, videos and software. When people finally can't download any free content from the mafia (i.e. content industry) the people will finally see how expensive and restricted the legal alternative is and turn to free and independent sources.
Imagen, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore. Maybe than people will see and embrace the free alternatives which are more than sufficient for at least 99% of the users. The same with music, that people can discover that there are plenty of independent music bands with music good as on MTV. And there is plenty of DRM free games, a few free to download, like the http://mashable.com/2009/10/20/world-of-goo-huge-success/
Why you can't it have both ways? You have a device that works like old Steve intended but you can extend it like a normal PC.
I would understand if the device is cheap and you can't extend it because it doesn't have a hard drive or something else.
Anyway, the marketing talk about how PCs are dying or the people don't want to do anything is just BF so sell it. The only reason why the iPad is so locked down is that Apple wants total control over it, so they can sell you more overpriced crap.
You complain that you can't update your Windows because it fails the WGA verification but you like to buy a device that is so locked down that you can't use anything without Apples approval. It would be o.k. for me if the Apple's stuff was cheap, like throw-away cheap or the Nokia mobile phone that I got for 1 Euro cheap. But it's 500$, that is for me a high class device.
But it is still completely within their power to take away every game you've purchased through Steam. When you use Steam, you agree to the EULA, which basically states that you are not buying the game, you are purchasing a license through Valve.
How is that different for any other EULA for any other proprietary software you bought? Check your EULA for WindowsXP/Vista/7 there is the same crap that you only got a license to use and that Microsoft reserve the rights to cancel the license at any time for what ever reason.
I don't think you can get rich if your main product is the open source software. There are only a few exceptions where software is the real product, like Windows, PhotoShop, etc. This software is a niche product, very specialized. But most of the time software is just a by-product of your enterprise.
Apple, for example, don't sell MacOS so much as Macs. Apple is a hardware company, the MacOS system is just a by-product. If Apple would release MacOS as open source, they wouldn't lose much, because nobody can sell it which an Mac-clone.
For most companies, the software is just a necessity to get the enterprise running. That is why Linux is so much used. Everybody needs an operating system but nobody really makes money with an operating system (which Microsoft as a special case). RedHah, Novell, they sell support; IBM sells it's mainframes; Google sells it's web-apps as a service;
We just looking at games, Microsoft and Adobe and ask how they could make money if their products were open source. But they are the exceptions in software applications. They targeting end-user with their software, it's their core business. But if you are a car company, for example, using open source software or releasing the code shouldn't make any difference. In fact, a model like the Linux kernel is very good to save costs and to lower risks. Instead that every car manufacturer creates their own software to control the car, they could make an open source project and contribute to it like with the Linux kernel. They could save costs, because now all car manufacturers are sharing the costs, and lower the risks, because the code is tested by many more companies in very different scenarios. That is what the Open handset Alliance (OHA) is doing and why everyone now embrace Android.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't somebody reverse engineer an exploit for the Apache server or the Linux kernel? Should be very easy, because the patches are all open source. But somehow you can reverse engineer the binary blob patches from MS for new exploits?
LOLFR! Wow, that's... interesting. Like it or not, Microsoft has been the market leader in IDEs for, well... ever. Both Eclipse and NetBeans exist to try and duplicate functionality Microsoft pioneered.
I'm used Visual Studio 2003 and now I'm using Visual Studio 2008. I'm missing really very useful tools that I knew for years in Eclipse. Refactoring comes in mind, navigation in the code, source code formatting and automatic generation of code. Incremental compiler; I can run code that have compiler errors in it. Visual Studio 2003 doesn't had any unit test integration at all, as far as I can remember. Code completion, don't get me started on that crap that is called IntelliJ.
As far as I have observed, the only advantage for Visual Studio is the tightly integration which the rest of the Microsoft products, like Office, SQLServer, IIS, ASP.NET. But I couldn't find anything that I can't get from Java, which works on every platform and it's free.
What part of "Java doesn't make for good desktop applications" don't you understand? Did you choose to ignore that fact because it's inconvenient, or did you not actually read my post?
I think I don't understand every part of that sentence. I'm using Java applications every day, some are SWT based, some are Swing based. There are not worse or slower then, for example, Firefox or Openoffice.org. It's true that Swing don't look so good and I hope that Sun/Oracle will do something about it, but either you use a different Look&Feel or you use SWT which will use the native look just like Mono/GTK#.
Furthermore, because of the maturity of Java it offers way more tools for the developers, both in terms of available frameworks and the tools (like ant, maven, Eclipse RCP).
That's even a much horrible picture of MS's security. Even the patches are so bad that they are a security risk.
Why should I leverage C#/Mono for which the company behind it have no intention to make C#/.NET really open source with an open community and the only security I would have is some kind of "promise" from a market dominating company which have a history of being anti-competitive which whatever means possible?
I'm using C#/.NET right now for a project written in ASP.NET. We could talk about the "strong" IDE if either Microsoft or Mono provide one that can catch up with Eclipse or NetBeans. The language is a matter of taste, but if you don't like Java than you can always use other languages (for example, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, Scala, Groovy, and so on) and have the whole JDK and the java tools (like ant and maven) for you.
Interesting to note that C#3.0, C#4.0 and LINQ are not ECMA standards yet. What is the road plan from Microsoft to standardize those?
Try Gwenview. It have all kinds of exports, batch processing, tools, crop, resize, red eyes removal and perhaps more.
ECMA 334 and CLI is a small subset of what you call C# and what Mono is implementing. What about .NET, Asp.net, Windows Forms, which make C# any useful in the first place?
.NET.
.NET. But that's not going to happen, because MS have no interest in making C#/.NET available to other platforms than Windows.
If you want a managed and widely available language and framework, why you don't just use Java, Python, Php, Perl, Ruby and so on, which are completely free, which out any patents and are community controlled? There are available today, well tested, have a lot more tools and libraries as C#/Mono. In addition, you are not using a tool that is constantly behind the one company that is controlling all aspects of C# and
The other question is, why anyone should even use Mono in the first place? The only reason for what Mono is good, is a replacement for
You are right, MS is interested that anyone using C#/.NET everywhere; but only if they are using it on Windows.
How about Visual Paradigm? Runs flawless on Windows and Linux as far as I can tell. Furthermore, OpenOffice.org and Firefox are not faster then either Visual Paradigm or Eclipse.
So just don't buy an iPad? If I would buy me some hardware and the guy said I need to buy some stupid stuff with it because it's some kind of policy than I would just call him crazy and walk out of the store.
Mod me down I don't care. So it's the 1454355436 time that the IIS server is hacked, while all the other servers are save and sound. Is it because the IIS server is the most used one? Last time I checked Apache is running 70% of all web servers.
Maybe next time you should not listen to the MS drones and the "get the facts" FUD sites and set up a nice Apache+Linux or *BSD web server. There are not only cheaper, easier so maintain, and they will not be hacked every week.
I'm pretty sure it's in their EULA. Try read it sometimes :)
So you convinced her to pay for the mistakes of others? I wish I could do that. "No, my product is not bad, just pay a third party for my mistakes"
> http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows-7-libraries-%E2%80%93-and-why-you-want-them/
/media/usbpictures) the link will stay valid whenever you plug the same usb hard disk in.
A big fad ROFL. I really rolled laughing on the floor. That is exactly how soft links are working.
Make a folder in your $HOME called "Pictures", open that folder. Now plug in your USB hard drive, open it. Drag&Drop the folder with your additional pictures from the hard drive in your "Pictures" folder at $HOME. Now choose to create a link. Voila, you have a Windows 7 style "Libraries".
Btw, since Linux mount the hard disk not as a random letter (i.e. D: or E: or H:) but with the name you give for the hard disk (for example, my usb flash have the name 'usbpictures', it will mount the flash on
Microsoft is really good at selling 1970 technology under different names to people. Hurray for the marketing.
> it just hasn't made it easy to create them.
Why is it that, anyway? I remember Windows has introduced shortcuts which behaved like soft links but were some special file with more information. Why they made a more complicated feature that have the same functionality as soft links? More complicated, because the shortcuts were not transparent as links are. They only worked in Explorer - Was that the reasoning to introduce shortcuts instead of using links? Because they only working in Explorer, but links can work with any third-party application?
In Gnome or Kde to make a soft link you just drag&drop a file or a folder and than you can choose to create a link.
What are you talking about? In my $HOME I have Documents, Music, Videos and Downloads. I go to Music and all is in one place, sorted by the Artist and by Album. The Music folder is a soft link to a different partition as the Documents is a soft link to a Truecrypt container, because I like to save my documents encrypted.
Soft links are working transparent to every application, so I can use file managers or other applications. If I need to backup I just copy it over or I use tools like rsync.
Why you don't just use soft links to folders? I have my music, videos and my documents all on sepereated partitions, too, but I just soft link everthing in my $home directory. To put my stuff in the folders it's just drag&drop the files. I don't need some "libraries" for that, it's build in in the system since 1990 and I can use every file manager I like.
> I wish I had an answer of how to fix the above problem.
How about teaching in school what science is and what a theory is all about?
A theory can't be right or wrong, a theory can only get the right or wrong predictions in a limited model. For example, the Newtons Gravitation theory have right predictions if the masses are travelling at very slow speeds but fails at speeds near the speed of light. So the SM is neither right nor wrong, but you will get some right predictions and some wrong predictions. So far the SM had only right predictions.
That is what the ID or Creationists don't get. ID is not a theory, because you can't tell if the prediction is right or wrong.
ROFL. You don't have to agree to the GPL at all. Please read it up and stop this non-sense. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ClickThrough
Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL.
Why you people bother with EULAs in the first place? Now, I don't know with product it was but since the woman doesn't suffer any business loss I would think it was just Adobe Photoshop or something else. I didn't agreed to any kind of EULA for over a year and I will certainly not in the foreseeable future. Why? Because I'm using Free Software and there are plenty of it available. As a side effect, these costs you nothing, too.
Now, granted, someone who needs a software to do his work maybe needs to buy a copy of Photoshop or MS Office. But 99% of the people out there just don't need it. Save the EULA BS and save your money. The last time I red an EULA I just couldn't agree to it because it's just so full of BS; how can you agree to any EULA and pay them money for it at the same time? You have an alternative, maybe not always, but often.
Never mind the other issues in China, which they have a lot, but "China isn't just "failing to crack down on copyright piracy" (per the RTFA), they have institutionalized copyright infringement for profit all over their country and it's probably a substantial slice of their GNP", so China is basically doing exact the same what America and Ireland was doing with books in the 18 and 19 century?
Maybe we should just face the true, that software in itself is worth nothing because it costs you nothing to produce? But if America is continue to export it's industry and it's currency to China, maybe the only thing of value are the so called "intellectual property" that America will have left.
Linus doesn't give Linux for free, he's giving it for Free. Meaning, you can do what ever you like with Linux and it's source code.
If MS would be opening up the code for everyone under an open license, that would be news. But until that, it's just a marketing gag to get a foot in a new market.
That's a good thing. I wish they could stop all illegal downloads of music, videos and software. When people finally can't download any free content from the mafia (i.e. content industry) the people will finally see how expensive and restricted the legal alternative is and turn to free and independent sources.
Imagen, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore. Maybe than people will see and embrace the free alternatives which are more than sufficient for at least 99% of the users. The same with music, that people can discover that there are plenty of independent music bands with music good as on MTV. And there is plenty of DRM free games, a few free to download, like the http://mashable.com/2009/10/20/world-of-goo-huge-success/
Why you can't it have both ways? You have a device that works like old Steve intended but you can extend it like a normal PC.
I would understand if the device is cheap and you can't extend it because it doesn't have a hard drive or something else.
Anyway, the marketing talk about how PCs are dying or the people don't want to do anything is just BF so sell it. The only reason why the iPad is so locked down is that Apple wants total control over it, so they can sell you more overpriced crap.
You complain that you can't update your Windows because it fails the WGA verification but you like to buy a device that is so locked down that you can't use anything without Apples approval. It would be o.k. for me if the Apple's stuff was cheap, like throw-away cheap or the Nokia mobile phone that I got for 1 Euro cheap. But it's 500$, that is for me a high class device.
But it is still completely within their power to take away every game you've purchased through Steam. When you use Steam, you agree to the EULA, which basically states that you are not buying the game, you are purchasing a license through Valve.
How is that different for any other EULA for any other proprietary software you bought? Check your EULA for WindowsXP/Vista/7 there is the same crap that you only got a license to use and that Microsoft reserve the rights to cancel the license at any time for what ever reason.
So it's like Apple than and the Apple-Stores. They are doing pretty good.
I don't think you can get rich if your main product is the open source software. There are only a few exceptions where software is the real product, like Windows, PhotoShop, etc. This software is a niche product, very specialized. But most of the time software is just a by-product of your enterprise.
Apple, for example, don't sell MacOS so much as Macs. Apple is a hardware company, the MacOS system is just a by-product. If Apple would release MacOS as open source, they wouldn't lose much, because nobody can sell it which an Mac-clone.
For most companies, the software is just a necessity to get the enterprise running. That is why Linux is so much used. Everybody needs an operating system but nobody really makes money with an operating system (which Microsoft as a special case). RedHah, Novell, they sell support; IBM sells it's mainframes; Google sells it's web-apps as a service;
We just looking at games, Microsoft and Adobe and ask how they could make money if their products were open source. But they are the exceptions in software applications. They targeting end-user with their software, it's their core business. But if you are a car company, for example, using open source software or releasing the code shouldn't make any difference. In fact, a model like the Linux kernel is very good to save costs and to lower risks. Instead that every car manufacturer creates their own software to control the car, they could make an open source project and contribute to it like with the Linux kernel. They could save costs, because now all car manufacturers are sharing the costs, and lower the risks, because the code is tested by many more companies in very different scenarios. That is what the Open handset Alliance (OHA) is doing and why everyone now embrace Android.