I understand that there is no official project for ASP.NET. As I said it appears as though there will be based on the progress made in the System.Web.* class libraries, seeing as these classes make up most of the functionality in ASP.NET. Of course, all of this is irrelevent other then "it'd be cool for web application" learning projects. The bulk of the educational value lies in the CLR.
Finally, I'm not saying that the.NET Framework should be used in schools. I'm just saying that A) it makes more sense then Java and B) if schools are taking a liking to it, power to them.
If a "Web Service" is a fad, then why would M$ be pushing.NET....NET is, supposedly, based upon the notion of web services.
.NET marketing !=.NET technology. I've been working with.NET for 8 months (professionally), and only in one project was a Web Service part of the design. Java and the JVM are to Web Services as C# and the.NET CLR are to Web Services. Web Services are a small fraction of the.NET Base Class Library. MS is not the only major company pushing Web Services, IBM has been doing the same. MS is just saying that.NET is the "Web Service Development Platform of Choice", whereas IBM says that their Java solution is. Finally, although C# obviously (no matter how much MS denies it) borrowed a lot from Java, it's not almost like Java. In C# everything, and I mean everything including primitive datatypes, is an object. This is fundamentally different then Java, and already shows that C# isn't a "Java Clone". There are some good comparisons online for those "migrating" from Java to C# after which reading you will realise that they differ in many ways, and what they do share they share with C\C++.
C# is no better at teaching "language design" than any other. Hell, it is almost identical to Java, so why not stick with Java? Point being, why should schools and universities spend thousands of dollars switchinting to the ".NET platform"
There is no cost to implement.NET and C# for personal, educational, and even commercial use. Plus, Java is not a standard, C# and the core of.NET is. There are already FreeBSD and Linux C# compilers, and the Mono project has even implemented many of the "non-standard" (like ASP.NET) class libraries.
As far as language design, the.NET CLR is very compelling due to the focus on "language neutrality" (only to an extent, of course). The CIL, CLS, and CTS (Common Intermediate Language, Comman Language Specification, and Common Type System, repsectively) are all very friendly to a certain degree of language diversity. This is far different then the JVM, where the VM is centered around a language. Of course, since it's all bytecode, projects like JPython are possible. However, many will agree that the CLR is much more apt for language design. There are many features in the CLR that are not found in C#, for example. A good read for more info would be Compiling for the.NET Language Runtime (Prentice Hall PTR).
By "abstract machine design", I hope you aren't referring to "platform independence"
From a computer science standpoint, the CLR is an Abstract Machine. Whether or not it makes business sense for MS to develop the CLR on other platforms is irrelevant. Again, there's the Mono project, the DotGnu project, and others. Microsoft is saying, "Windows.NET Server is THE server for.NET, but if others want to try to build a better solution, power to them."
A college or university is not, nor should be a place where flavor of the day propritary platform should be taught.
I fully agree. But.NET and C# are not fads. A "Web Service" is a fad. C#, however, is a full blown programming language. I can take the vast majority of what I learned about C# and apply it to Java (actually, I did the reverse). I can also apply it to most any other 4GL's. There's also a lot of CS benefits by studying the CLR (ECMA Standard). It is a perfect platform for teaching language design, abstract machine design, or OOP.
Yes, and they didn't make LOTR. Due to the unfortunate psuedo-monopoly they will be getting a piece of the pie when I buy LOTR. Although I've cut back my contributions to the MPAA, and completely to the RIAA, I will NOT let the MPAA screw me over more by not allowing me to enjoy something as huge as the LOTR and Tron (which is even worse because it's Disney!). The reality is, a small/. boycott will do nothing. Serious legislation will. This is why the EFF is where the money from my "no-longer-CD-budget" and "heavily-cut-back-DVD-budget" goes.
And if you give it two minutes, you come up with even more insight:-). Seriously, you make a good point. However, ask John Carmack what he thinks about not having access to memory. For example, there is an MSDN article (too lazy to look it up) showing how a simple graphic operation was over 50 times faster when using pointers in C# (in "unsafe" or "unmanaged" code). Of course, this was a very isolated test. The point is that even if Java or "Abstract Machine" based platforms are generally 50% slower, it doesn't mean that intense 3D applications will follow the same trend.
Java,.NET, VB, Python, etc. are all designed to allow you to focus on the "problem domain" instead of the "plumbing". With 3D gaming, however, one of the major problem domains is the plumbing.
Yes, I just didn't quite understand how it was directly related to my question relating hashing. I never said using MD5 would make it impossible for someone to steal PW's. You made it sound like there was no point in hashing the passwords in the first place.
Well, it is a hash, which is a "One Way Encryption" scheme. I never said the PW's needed to be recoverable.
if someone rooted slashdot it would be exceptionally easy to find anyones passwords out anyway
I'm not following. Are you saying that a brute force would be easy? This has to to with the individuals PW strength. If I have a strong password, I don't think someone cares to to use 3 months of CPU to try to get it.
Lol - yes I agree. But my point is I'm not saying whethor or not AMD will win, I'm just saying they have better tech because they are building faster chips for less. It welcomes MY bottom line as a consumer. So again, from a tech standpoint, AMD is easily superior: Faster Chip, Cheaper Production.
Apple is competing very well against MS. Sure, years ago their OS was sub-par when compared to MS's offerings (IMHO, please no flames). Apple now has a very compelling OS, OSX. They also have incredibly elegant hardware (iMac G4, G4 tower, iPod, etc.) which outdoes anything from the "Big 5" x86 vendors. Personally, I love [most things about] x86, and I love Windows. However, I see Apple gaining huge marketshare and MS facing some very good competition.
I don't care about pipelines, Ln caches, SIMD, Clock speed, bus speed, etc. (okay I do but not in this context).
The bottom line is, regardless of how much each chip sells for, AMD can build faster chips for the dollar then Intel can. That's where AMD has Intel beat, and that's where it counts.
Why do they **FORCE** you to use Intel CPU's. Why do they **FORCE** (you like that word don't you?) you to use their exclusive brand of memory (regardless of who manufactures it for Dell). What if you want an Asus KT266A motherboard? Nope, they **FORCE** you to use THEIR motherboard. Dell spends a lot of resources on quality assurance and support, and less choice means better support and cheaper products. If you don't like that, I can send you to one of many great computer manufactures.
I'm not advocating forcing anybody not to buy Windows, I just want choice. I also don't say that there are no advantages for some people when Windows is preinstalled. I just want to know why you have to be FORCED.
Truth is Windows costs hundreds of dollars whether it's pre-bundled with the hardware or not, and it always has. The difference is many users don't notice that cost when they pay as a portion of their pc's purchase price rather than actually handing the cashier a product that rings up $299.99.
As already mentioned, but glossed over by the moderators, that when it's pre-bundled you are paying a LOT less then the $299 shelf price. For example, XP Home edition runs around $88 OEM. The other benefit of OEM is that you don't have the product activation crap.
Funny how thoughtless trolls without basis of fact get modded up... see my sig.
PS. As I've said 100 times, you can use VNC, Citrix, or ANY desktop/application sharing program on XP - you just need licenses for each desktop session.
By excluding previously allowed software on their systems, Microsoft are extending their monopoly over the software that runs on their system.
Read: THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDING SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEM. This is an extended definition of Client Access Licesenses (CAL's) for Remote Deskop applications. This means, that for every user that is connecting TO (not FROM) the XP box via a Remote Desktop application, you MUST have a seperate windows license UNLESS you are using Windows Remote Desktop or Netmeeting, etc.
VNC is not in the EULA and therefore is not the only piece of software in question. Notice the parenthesis (for example) after the "VNC". This means, if somehow you COULD do this with VNC, it would be an issue, but it's just an example, meaning it could be Citrix (as I mentioned) or any other type of software. So no, it isn't nonsense - think outside your zeal.
In any case, what matters is not whether VNC lets you do this but that Microsoft tries to impose such restrictions.
Ya, heaven forbid a server OS has CAL's... just like any other commercial OS out there. Now, if you don't like CAL's, that's a different subject, but not for this thread.
This is typical/. "This is so obviously simple why is it taking so long?" crap. The issues at hand are extremely complex and deserve the amount of energy invested. It is extremely arrogant to trivialize this entire process.
MS will appeal every last thing they can think of.
Just like we will until the DMCA is hopefully rewritten or overturned.
The reason this is even mentioned is because it has to do with "Citrix like" remote applications. Essentially, you can't setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it ala VNC (for example) without having the appropriate licenses. This is no different then your usual CAL (Client Access License) for using a Windows network. The EULA just get's more specific about "Remote Desktops" since it's getting more popular.
Actually, they are one in the same. This is part of the whole "Integrated Browser" issue. If you type "D:\" in "Explorer" you get the Explorer interface for your D drive. If you type "http://www.microsoft.com" in Explorer you go to the Internet interface of Explorer. Another example if you go to "ftp://coolbeans.com" in [Internet] Explorer you can drag and drop files to and from D:\ no differently then if you had to "Normal Explorer" windows open.
As cool and powerful as AltiVec is (arguably a more powerful SIMD Instruction Set then SSE2), I'm skeptical as to how much additional performance gain there will be. My skepticism was renewed when John Carmack made this post.
If MS makes it difficult for customers to remove and replace the audio CD player they supply with the customer's preferred audio CD player, then yes, they are illegally abusing their monopoly.
I agree with you. However, it's not difficult, at all, to download your own CD player program (there are a bunch of neat ones available), nor is it difficult to download Opera (all 3MB of it!). It's pointless to speculate on what MS _could_ do (eg: what if MS makes it impossible to upgrade the built in CD player or calculator).
As many have pointed out, these programs don't fully remove IE from the OS. Everything from the folder browser to MSHelp uses IE. The point is though, as a browser Interface, MS could remove it. But why would I as a consumer not want an Internet browser to come with my OS? Or the audio CD player? Did MS illigally use it's monoploy to push all audio CD playing software out of the market by including a free one with Windows? No, it just made sense for MS to package their OS with tools their customers wanted.
Actually, this is not an experiment - if you look at past posts you could call me a MS fanboy (allthough I'm not: I just tend to lean the MS way more then other solutions). My experiments are when I'm actually trolling on purpose. This post, however, has legit value and isn't a "Linux Sux0r3z" post, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no *nix version of ASP.NET.
.NET Framework should be used in schools. I'm just saying that A) it makes more sense then Java and B) if schools are taking a liking to it, power to them.
I understand that there is no official project for ASP.NET. As I said it appears as though there will be based on the progress made in the System.Web.* class libraries, seeing as these classes make up most of the functionality in ASP.NET. Of course, all of this is irrelevent other then "it'd be cool for web application" learning projects. The bulk of the educational value lies in the CLR.
Finally, I'm not saying that the
If a "Web Service" is a fad, then why would M$ be pushing .NET....NET is, supposedly, based upon the notion of web services.
.NET marketing != .NET technology. I've been working with .NET for 8 months (professionally), and only in one project was a Web Service part of the design. Java and the JVM are to Web Services as C# and the .NET CLR are to Web Services. Web Services are a small fraction of the .NET Base Class Library. MS is not the only major company pushing Web Services, IBM has been doing the same. MS is just saying that .NET is the "Web Service Development Platform of Choice", whereas IBM says that their Java solution is. Finally, although C# obviously (no matter how much MS denies it) borrowed a lot from Java, it's not almost like Java. In C# everything, and I mean everything including primitive datatypes, is an object. This is fundamentally different then Java, and already shows that C# isn't a "Java Clone". There are some good comparisons online for those "migrating" from Java to C# after which reading you will realise that they differ in many ways, and what they do share they share with C\C++.
.NET and C# for personal, educational, and even commercial use. Plus, Java is not a standard, C# and the core of .NET is. There are already FreeBSD and Linux C# compilers, and the Mono project has even implemented many of the "non-standard" (like ASP.NET) class libraries.
As far as language design, the .NET CLR is very compelling due to the focus on "language neutrality" (only to an extent, of course). The CIL, CLS, and CTS (Common Intermediate Language, Comman Language Specification, and Common Type System, repsectively) are all very friendly to a certain degree of language diversity. This is far different then the JVM, where the VM is centered around a language. Of course, since it's all bytecode, projects like JPython are possible. However, many will agree that the CLR is much more apt for language design. There are many features in the CLR that are not found in C#, for example. A good read for more info would be Compiling for the .NET Language Runtime (Prentice Hall PTR).
.NET Server is THE server for .NET, but if others want to try to build a better solution, power to them."
C# is no better at teaching "language design" than any other. Hell, it is almost identical to Java, so why not stick with Java? Point being, why should schools and universities spend thousands of dollars switchinting to the ".NET platform"
There is no cost to implement
By "abstract machine design", I hope you aren't referring to "platform independence"
From a computer science standpoint, the CLR is an Abstract Machine. Whether or not it makes business sense for MS to develop the CLR on other platforms is irrelevant. Again, there's the Mono project, the DotGnu project, and others. Microsoft is saying, "Windows
A college or university is not, nor should be a place where flavor of the day propritary platform should be taught.
.NET and C# are not fads. A "Web Service" is a fad. C#, however, is a full blown programming language. I can take the vast majority of what I learned about C# and apply it to Java (actually, I did the reverse). I can also apply it to most any other 4GL's. There's also a lot of CS benefits by studying the CLR (ECMA Standard). It is a perfect platform for teaching language design, abstract machine design, or OOP.
I fully agree. But
Yes, and they didn't make LOTR. Due to the unfortunate psuedo-monopoly they will be getting a piece of the pie when I buy LOTR. Although I've cut back my contributions to the MPAA, and completely to the RIAA, I will NOT let the MPAA screw me over more by not allowing me to enjoy something as huge as the LOTR and Tron (which is even worse because it's Disney!). The reality is, a small /. boycott will do nothing. Serious legislation will. This is why the EFF is where the money from my "no-longer-CD-budget" and "heavily-cut-back-DVD-budget" goes.
Think about this for a minute.
:-). Seriously, you make a good point. However, ask John Carmack what he thinks about not having access to memory. For example, there is an MSDN article (too lazy to look it up) showing how a simple graphic operation was over 50 times faster when using pointers in C# (in "unsafe" or "unmanaged" code). Of course, this was a very isolated test. The point is that even if Java or "Abstract Machine" based platforms are generally 50% slower, it doesn't mean that intense 3D applications will follow the same trend.
.NET, VB, Python, etc. are all designed to allow you to focus on the "problem domain" instead of the "plumbing". With 3D gaming, however, one of the major problem domains is the plumbing.
And if you give it two minutes, you come up with even more insight
Java,
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
Yes, I just didn't quite understand how it was directly related to my question relating hashing. I never said using MD5 would make it impossible for someone to steal PW's. You made it sound like there was no point in hashing the passwords in the first place.
MD5 is not an encryption scheme,
Well, it is a hash, which is a "One Way Encryption" scheme. I never said the PW's needed to be recoverable.
if someone rooted slashdot it would be exceptionally easy to find anyones passwords out anyway
I'm not following. Are you saying that a brute force would be easy? This has to to with the individuals PW strength. If I have a strong password, I don't think someone cares to to use 3 months of CPU to try to get it.
Lol - yes I agree. But my point is I'm not saying whethor or not AMD will win, I'm just saying they have better tech because they are building faster chips for less. It welcomes MY bottom line as a consumer. So again, from a tech standpoint, AMD is easily superior: Faster Chip, Cheaper Production.
And is there a particular reason as to why our passwords aren't MD5'd or SHA-1'd???
But AMD still can't sell those chips and make more per-chip profit than Intel can.
That's business, not technology.
Apple is competing very well against MS. Sure, years ago their OS was sub-par when compared to MS's offerings (IMHO, please no flames). Apple now has a very compelling OS, OSX. They also have incredibly elegant hardware (iMac G4, G4 tower, iPod, etc.) which outdoes anything from the "Big 5" x86 vendors. Personally, I love [most things about] x86, and I love Windows. However, I see Apple gaining huge marketshare and MS facing some very good competition.
I don't care about pipelines, Ln caches, SIMD, Clock speed, bus speed, etc. (okay I do but not in this context).
The bottom line is, regardless of how much each chip sells for, AMD can build faster chips for the dollar then Intel can. That's where AMD has Intel beat, and that's where it counts.
Why do they **FORCE** you to use Intel CPU's. Why do they **FORCE** (you like that word don't you?) you to use their exclusive brand of memory (regardless of who manufactures it for Dell). What if you want an Asus KT266A motherboard? Nope, they **FORCE** you to use THEIR motherboard. Dell spends a lot of resources on quality assurance and support, and less choice means better support and cheaper products. If you don't like that, I can send you to one of many great computer manufactures.
I'm not advocating forcing anybody not to buy Windows, I just want choice. I also don't say that there are no advantages for some people when Windows is preinstalled. I just want to know why you have to be FORCED.
You are not FORCED to buy from Dell.
Truth is Windows costs hundreds of dollars whether it's pre-bundled with the hardware or not, and it always has. The difference is many users don't notice that cost when they pay as a portion of their pc's purchase price rather than actually handing the cashier a product that rings up $299.99.
As already mentioned, but glossed over by the moderators, that when it's pre-bundled you are paying a LOT less then the $299 shelf price. For example, XP Home edition runs around $88 OEM. The other benefit of OEM is that you don't have the product activation crap.
Funny how thoughtless trolls without basis of fact get modded up... see my sig.
PS. As I've said 100 times, you can use VNC, Citrix, or ANY desktop/application sharing program on XP - you just need licenses for each desktop session.
By excluding previously allowed software on their systems, Microsoft are extending their monopoly over the software that runs on their system.
Read: THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDING SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEM. This is an extended definition of Client Access Licesenses (CAL's) for Remote Deskop applications. This means, that for every user that is connecting TO (not FROM) the XP box via a Remote Desktop application, you MUST have a seperate windows license UNLESS you are using Windows Remote Desktop or Netmeeting, etc.
VNC is not in the EULA and therefore is not the only piece of software in question. Notice the parenthesis (for example) after the "VNC". This means, if somehow you COULD do this with VNC, it would be an issue, but it's just an example, meaning it could be Citrix (as I mentioned) or any other type of software. So no, it isn't nonsense - think outside your zeal.
In any case, what matters is not whether VNC lets you do this but that Microsoft tries to impose such restrictions.
Ya, heaven forbid a server OS has CAL's... just like any other commercial OS out there. Now, if you don't like CAL's, that's a different subject, but not for this thread.
This is typical /. "This is so obviously simple why is it taking so long?" crap. The issues at hand are extremely complex and deserve the amount of energy invested. It is extremely arrogant to trivialize this entire process.
MS will appeal every last thing they can think of.
Just like we will until the DMCA is hopefully rewritten or overturned.
The reason this is even mentioned is because it has to do with "Citrix like" remote applications. Essentially, you can't setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it ala VNC (for example) without having the appropriate licenses. This is no different then your usual CAL (Client Access License) for using a Windows network. The EULA just get's more specific about "Remote Desktops" since it's getting more popular.
Actually, they are one in the same. This is part of the whole "Integrated Browser" issue. If you type "D:\" in "Explorer" you get the Explorer interface for your D drive. If you type "http://www.microsoft.com" in Explorer you go to the Internet interface of Explorer. Another example if you go to "ftp://coolbeans.com" in [Internet] Explorer you can drag and drop files to and from D:\ no differently then if you had to "Normal Explorer" windows open.
As cool and powerful as AltiVec is (arguably a more powerful SIMD Instruction Set then SSE2), I'm skeptical as to how much additional performance gain there will be. My skepticism was renewed when John Carmack made this post.
What's sad is you got me seriously thinking, "maybe by next paycheck I could afford to be a Kernal Hacker".
If MS makes it difficult for customers to remove and replace the audio CD player they supply with the customer's preferred audio CD player, then yes, they are illegally abusing their monopoly.
I agree with you. However, it's not difficult, at all, to download your own CD player program (there are a bunch of neat ones available), nor is it difficult to download Opera (all 3MB of it!). It's pointless to speculate on what MS _could_ do (eg: what if MS makes it impossible to upgrade the built in CD player or calculator).
As many have pointed out, these programs don't fully remove IE from the OS. Everything from the folder browser to MSHelp uses IE. The point is though, as a browser Interface, MS could remove it. But why would I as a consumer not want an Internet browser to come with my OS? Or the audio CD player? Did MS illigally use it's monoploy to push all audio CD playing software out of the market by including a free one with Windows? No, it just made sense for MS to package their OS with tools their customers wanted.
Actually, this is not an experiment - if you look at past posts you could call me a MS fanboy (allthough I'm not: I just tend to lean the MS way more then other solutions). My experiments are when I'm actually trolling on purpose. This post, however, has legit value and isn't a "Linux Sux0r3z" post, for example.