Re:Why I won't be developing with .NET: $$$
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that is innacurate. If you want to develop for.NET, all you need is a text editor and the.NET framework redistributable (which you can download for free). If you want to use a rich IDE, you would need to purchase Visual Studio.NET.
As an alternative, I've heard that there are a couple of open source IDEs for developing on.NET which are also free(ie. SharpDevelop for C#).
Apparently the idea is to compile the various code (HTML, Javascript etc.) on the client machine, after it has been sent, via a browser plug-in.... Hmm... some potential... especially on bandwidth considerations...
Here is an interesting quote...
Though the software is free, Curl makes money by metering and charging fees to businesses based on the amount of "Curled" data their users download.
When I do use Windows, (rare)... I've found that some of the newer antivirus programs aren't that intrusive. (Specifically Norton 2001). The memory and CPU usage is minimal, and I've never run into a virus that it hasn't been able to remove yet. McAfee is notorious for hogging resources...
From what I understand (And please correct me if I am wrong), FreeBSD has a completely different kernel than Linux (which Mandrake is just a distribution of).
On top of that kernel, you can run X-Windows, and then a common window-manager (like GNOME, KDE etc.) In theory, you could have a system that looks identical to Mandrake(linux) that runs on top of the FreeBSD kernel. Some argue that the BSD kernel is more stable and "industrial strength".
Finally someone that sees through all the Slashdot bullsh*t, and tells it like it is.
Kudos...
I agree that any attempt to talk maturely regarding any issue about Microsoft vs. Linux turns into an immature "My OS is better than your OS" junior high school bashfest.
I like and use both Linux(Slackware) and Windows(2000 Pro). Both have their uses, and it makes no sense to me to be that narrowminded to advocate something so blindly without actually having an honest opinion based on real world experience. I am a programmer by trade, and I choose to use Microsoft technologies purely for the fact that I get more done in less code, and less time. And the performance is comparable. I don't expect anyone to agree with me...
"This is another example of the ways personal TV technology can empower the TV viewer and add a level of interactivity which molds the TV experience to the modern American lifestyle."
How truly sad it is to see that American culture has gotten to this point. How many hours of programming do you think it took just to make sure that Joe Bloe doesn't miss the next episode of Star Trek Voyager?
To turn off the adaptive menus in Office 2000, do the following:
In the Tools menu, choose Customize.
Then on the Options tab, uncheck the box that says, "Menus show recently used commands first".
Once that is unchecked, the menu structure returns to normal.
Another new feature/bug found in the Win2K shell is the adaptive menu structure that they first tried to implement in Office 2000. The menus will rearrange and disappear depending on the items you use the most. Most frequently used items will appear closer to the beginning, and seldom used items will be hidden until you choose to view them. All of this can be turned off fairly easily as well.
Also, the location of the majority of administrative tools has changed. Everything is done through the Microsoft Management Console. So, the services applet, the user management, and the disk administrator are all in the same place.
In any event, Win2K is a step up from Win9x, but it still has a long way to go!........./rogue
Thank you for your honest reply.... I respect that. I am new to Slashdot, and was looking for a good way to start a conversation... I will email you at the address you posted as well... I just thought I would post a reply here too. My email address is: rogueorion@hotmail.com. I share your view about the pure teachings of Jesus. I say "pure" because unfortunately, even that has been clouded of late. Ghandi once said, "If we can all agree on the teachings of Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, then we would have solved not only our problems, but also that of the whole worlds!" I have a great respect for other people's viewpoints on this matter of God, and do not wish to sound dogmatic or pushy. Who am I to judge others? Even if someone were to believe that there is only one true way to please God, only one "true" religion, I think that judging others on that basis is a very dangerous position to put oneself in. Don't you agree?
Regarding the matter of Science vs. the Bible. One thing that I have found, is that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book. It is meant to be a spiritual and moral guide. But were it does touch on Science, it is very accurate. And example can be found in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 40:22. It says, "Ther is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..." The original Hebrew word for "circle" also had the meaning of "sphere". This passage was written way before the belief of a spherical planet was popular in the world scene.
My point is this.... People charge the Bible with being contradictory with science. It isn't meant to be a scientific textbook!
I apoligize for the short reply. Please let me know what you think... I am interested.
I did not mean to "just quote the bible to you"... I simply wanted to open a discussion... to see what people think. It is in no way a statement of beliefs... just a statement. Isn't this what it's all about? re: who God is talking to... this is a whole other topic... do you want me to supply a comment on this?
I invite comments on the following passage from the book of Genesis. -------------
Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: "I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, because I do regret that I have made them." - Genesis 6:5-7
Slashdot Mirror
According to this: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean45#sl5
Silverlight 5 will be supported for 10 years. Not many software vendors are prepared to do that.
Actually, that is innacurate. If you want to develop for
As an alternative, I've heard that there are a couple of open source IDEs for developing on
Hmm... some potential... especially on bandwidth considerations...
Here is an interesting quote...
I applaud your viewpoint. Slashdot needs more people like you to express balanced, sane opinions.
When I do use Windows, (rare)... I've found that some of the newer antivirus programs aren't that intrusive. (Specifically Norton 2001). The memory and CPU usage is minimal, and I've never run into a virus that it hasn't been able to remove yet. McAfee is notorious for hogging resources...
From what I understand (And please correct me if I am wrong), FreeBSD has a completely different kernel than Linux (which Mandrake is just a distribution of).
On top of that kernel, you can run X-Windows, and then a common window-manager (like GNOME, KDE etc.)
In theory, you could have a system that looks identical to Mandrake(linux) that runs on top of the FreeBSD kernel. Some argue that the BSD kernel is more stable and "industrial strength".
Finally someone that sees through all the Slashdot bullsh*t, and tells it like it is.
Kudos...
I agree that any attempt to talk maturely regarding any issue about Microsoft vs. Linux turns into an immature "My OS is better than your OS" junior high school bashfest.
I like and use both Linux(Slackware) and Windows(2000 Pro). Both have their uses, and it makes no sense to me to be that narrowminded to advocate something so blindly without actually having an honest opinion based on real world experience.
I am a programmer by trade, and I choose to use Microsoft technologies purely for the fact that I get more done in less code, and less time. And the performance is comparable. I don't expect anyone to agree with me...
This is MY opinion... NOT YOURS!!!
How truly sad it is to see that American culture has gotten to this point. How many hours of programming do you think it took just to make sure that Joe Bloe doesn't miss the next episode of Star Trek Voyager?
Very sad indeed....
To turn off the adaptive menus in Office 2000, do the following:
In the Tools menu, choose Customize.
Then on the Options tab, uncheck the box that says, "Menus show recently used commands first".
Once that is unchecked, the menu structure returns to normal.
Another new feature/bug found in the Win2K shell is the adaptive menu structure that they first tried to implement in Office 2000. The menus will rearrange and disappear depending on the items you use the most. Most frequently used items will appear closer to the beginning, and seldom used items will be hidden until you choose to view them. All of this can be turned off fairly easily as well. Also, the location of the majority of administrative tools has changed. Everything is done through the Microsoft Management Console. So, the services applet, the user management, and the disk administrator are all in the same place. In any event, Win2K is a step up from Win9x, but it still has a long way to go! ........./rogue
Thank you for your honest reply.... I respect that. I am new to Slashdot, and was looking for a good way to start a conversation...
I will email you at the address you posted as well... I just thought I would post a reply here too. My email address is: rogueorion@hotmail.com.
I share your view about the pure teachings of Jesus. I say "pure" because unfortunately, even that has been clouded of late.
Ghandi once said, "If we can all agree on the teachings of Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, then we would have solved not only our problems, but also that of the whole worlds!"
I have a great respect for other people's viewpoints on this matter of God, and do not wish to sound dogmatic or pushy. Who am I to judge others? Even if someone were to believe that there is only one true way to please God, only one "true" religion, I think that judging others on that basis is a very dangerous position to put oneself in. Don't you agree?
Regarding the matter of Science vs. the Bible. One thing that I have found, is that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book. It is meant to be a spiritual and moral guide. But were it does touch on Science, it is very accurate. And example can be found in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 40:22. It says, "Ther is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..." The original Hebrew word for "circle" also had the meaning of "sphere". This passage was written way before the belief of a spherical planet was popular in the world scene.
My point is this.... People charge the Bible with being contradictory with science. It isn't meant to be a scientific textbook!
I apoligize for the short reply. Please let me know what you think... I am interested.
I did not mean to "just quote the bible to you"... I simply wanted to open a discussion... to see what people think. It is in no way a statement of beliefs... just a statement. Isn't this what it's all about? re: who God is talking to... this is a whole other topic... do you want me to supply a comment on this?
I invite comments on the following passage from the book of Genesis.
-------------
Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: "I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, because I do regret that I have made them."
- Genesis 6:5-7