You ignored what I said. I said, why shouldn't someone contribute to a legislator that agrees with your position. In other words, they already believed what you did. your money isn't convincing them otherwise.
Question: Did microsoft contribute money to those that did not oppose the plan also?
Further, why shouldn't someone contribute to those legislators that agree with your position> That's how all campaign finance works. You support those you agree with, either financially or with voting or both.
While such a move would certainly hurt Microsoft a great deal. Think of the repercussions. Microsoft employs how many people in the EU? How many companies make money off of MS software? MS pulling out could cause a massive drop in the value of the Euro from all the side effects.
No, I don't write faster than I type, but I write faster than I can use a fingerboard or the dial-keys. So, when i'm using it without a keyboard, handwriting recognition is very important.
Also, you can use a good bluetooth keyboard with this as well, so if you're going to be typing at a table or something, you can pull that out and use that instead. Also, the Q1 has a USB keyboard option that fits well in their carrying case, but I didn't get a chance to play with this configuration (I did use the Think Outside Stowaway Bluetooth Keyboard).
I guess I was referring to a tablet that's either a slate or a "hybrid". The Laptop convertibles are just stupid in my opinion, they're heavy and clunky. I would do better with a regular laptop and a portable wacom tablet.
I was comparing this against the Compaq tc1100, which is probably closest in my opinion to functionality.
Actually, I got to play with one over the weekend. The handwriting recognition was excellent. Without training, it read my chicken scratch quite accurately (not a single misread). The voice recognition required more training, so I didn't use that. Battery life was, as expected, about 2 hours, which was fine for me. There's supposed to be an extended battery coming out for it in the next few months, and i'm almost always near an outlet when i'd be using it.
Weight was fine. I didn't find it too heavy at all. It even played WoW quite well. The digitizer was a little slow to react, but that was about it. I was VERY impressed, considering it's half the cost of tablet PC and provides far more functionality than a pocket pc. Exactly what I was looking for.
I think i'll buy one when the LED backlit version comes out.
You confuse having 20% more lines of code with 20% new code. If you rewrite 50% of the existing code, perhaps even in fewer lines of code, then add 20% or more lines on top of that, you get the picture.
Hmm.. i'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Microsoft Basic for the Altair was custom written in assembly code. Even K&K gave Microsoft a nod for managing to create a versoin of basic that fit in 4K with room for programs. Of course it didn't have many of the features of the mainframe basics, but it was impressive for the time. Dartmouth Basic, on the other hand, was a much larger piece of work written for a completely different processor and architecture.
It's doubtful that, even if they had the full source to a mainframe basic interpreter, it would have been much use, other than as a general place to start. I know gates has admitted to dumpster diving for operating system listings, but to my knowledge he's never admitted to getting application source code that way.
I've used a lot of SCM's actually, including the expensive ones like ClearCase.
But I have used VSS extensively, and while there are many things I don't like about it. It's just not as bad as most people like to make out. I've had 150 developers with gigabytes of data and years worth of history across hundreds of projects, and given the caveats i gave in my previous message, it's worked very well.
I've never had a corrupted database, once I took remote dialup and WAN connections out of the equation. Use in these scenarios was relegated to SourceOffsite.
Yes, it has a lot of issues. Yes, it's branching model is weird and is limited. Yes, you need to run the analyzer tool a couple of times a month to fix minor issues before they become big ones. Yes, being network filesystem based makes it fragile and sensitive to network issues. My point was not to appologize for those shortcomings, but the point out that you should use the tool for what it can do effectively. If that's not enough for you, then use a different tool, but for many VSS is all they need.
BTW, i've never had a problem using multiple checkouts, so i'm not sure what you're referring to. yeah, you have to manage conflicts every now and again, big deal. It's very usable.
A yugo may work remarkably well if you just need to get from point a to point b, but not if you are trying to use it as a means of hauling freight. Subversion, on the other hand, is significantly more complex to use and requires a great deal more knowledge and configuration. It's a tradeoff.
I've looked at Trac, and there are a lot of problems with it from my perspective.
1) It doesn't seem to have attachments to work items 2) There isn't any way for submitters to track the items they've submitted 3) It's not database agnostic, which means adding yet another support headache when you might already have several databases (though this appears to be planned for the future) 4) No email integration (again, a planned feature) 5) If you look through the changelogs, there's been a *LOT* of SQL injection vulnerabilities, which means a poor overall architecture.
While SourceSafe certainly leaves a lot to desire, it's certainly adequate for most people. The majority of the "problem" people have are related to one thing, flaky networks. If you use SourceSafe over dialup or a connection which isn't reliable, then you can lose connection in mid-write, which will corrupt the database.
VSS 2005 provides a client-server web based engine which completely solves this problem from non-local use. There's also products like SourceOffsite that also deal with that issue.
If you regularly perform the analysis, have reliable connections or use the client/server options for unreliable connections, then VSS will work remarkably well.
That doesn't address it's limitations in other areas, of course, but the reliability aspect is largely the fault of whoever is maintaining it. You might argue that it should be robust enough to deal with these issues, but that's merely arguing that a square peg should be round.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Defective By Design site may have updated their page since his article was written?
A google search on the articles phrasing reveales a number of quotes that seem to indicate that they silently changed the wording, likely after they got criticized for it.
Uhhh.. no. OSX 10.0 shipped in March of 2001, 10.1 in September of 2001 (about the time of XP) which means that since XP shipped, only 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 have shipped, and when you consider that Microsoft diverted most of their resources from Longhorn to XP SP2, which shipped in 2004, they've really only been working on Longhorn in earnest for about 2 years, which largely just coincides with Panther and Tiger.
AAnd, if you notice, the amount of time it's taking apple to release each successive version of OSX is increasing. 6 months from 10.0 to 10.1, 11 Months from 10.1 to 10.2, 14 Months from 10.2 to 10.3, 16 Months from 10.3 to 10.4, and it's now been more than a year since 10.4 shipped and with the scheduled ship date of the end of the year, that means it will be at least 18 months until 10.5 hits (maybe longer). Although, it should be noted that Apple had significant work to do on 10.4 to introduce the intel version, so that's a mitigating factor.
And for the record, if you don't know what workflow is, maybe you should start here:
No, Workflow foundation is not automator. Automator is a scripting language, more akin to PowerShell. Workflow foundation is a set of services to provide workflow integration to applications.
BitLocker and FileVault, while conceptually similar, are implemented very differently. BitLocker is a full drive encrypter, FileVault is more akin to the existing filesystem encryption in Windows, and only works for home directories.
Apple has NONE of Media Center's stuff by default. Oh, sure, it can play dvd's and mp3's, but not as a living room appliance. Yes, there are third party apps, but that's beside the point, Apple didn't have to create this for Tiger, and thus expend more resources, thus they could get it out the door faster.
No, Tiger didn't include a fraction of what Vista includes. Examples (pardon the jargon, but what else are you going to use?): Avalon (Windows Presentation Foundation), Indigo (Windows Communication Foundation), Windows Workflow Foundation, 3D Video engine (though OSX already had that, it wasn't necessary for Tiger), BitLocker, SuperFetch, ReadyDrive, ReadyBoost, Compound TCP/IP stack, Media Center, Network projection, Meeting Space, etc.. etc.. etc...
I know everyone likes to laugh that Vista is just XP SP3, but it's not. There's a shit load of stuff there.
While it's true that Longhorn has evolved a great deal since the early demos, many of those features were presented back then. Example: This article by Paul Thurott back in 2002 lists many of these:
Basically, these show things like the sidebar with widgets, talk about the search functionality (though at the time quicksearch was considered part of WinFS, so the talk is in that context). This was 2-3 years before Tiger, and a year before Panther.
Well, Tiger has only been out about about 9 months. Still, the point was that Apple could ship those features because 10.4 wasn't anywhere near the scope of Vista.
Actually, no. The annoying thing is that people like you will think apple invented all those things. Most of those features were initially introduced in early longhorn demo's more than 3 years ago. Apple saw them, copied them, and were able to get a new release of OSX out before Microsoft could, largely because Vista has a lot more to it than just those features that apple copied.
Seriously, I can't think of a *SINGLE* thing in Tiger that wasn't a copy of something else.
Actually, the Windows UI has largely been driven by the Office team for... well, as long as there's been an Office team. 3D buttons? Word had that before Windows. Common Dialogs? Again, Office. Movable tool bars? Office.
Note, i'm not saying Office or MS invented these things, just that Office had them before Windows, and Windows adopted them to adapt to Office.
There's a difference. Linux developers all have differing opinions on what the UI should be, and they all write their apps differently. Apple and Microsoft define a single UI standard that "most" apps follow. When Microsoft Rev's the standard, the apps follow suit... not so with Linux. Well, actually, that's not true.. many of them follow Microsoft or Apple as well;)
There is actually significant debate about the utility of 'greying' versus 'hiding'. Users are often confused by greying. Oh, sure, they know it's disabled, but they don't know WHY it's disabled. so it frustrates them when they want it un-disabled and they can't figure out what incantation to give to make it do that. Hiding causes uses to focus more on the context than the function.
Ever heard of a thing called a "debugger"? It requires, at a minimum, the debugging privilege, which is as good as root because if you know what you're doing, youc an give yourself root with it.
And if I call 2 people, and ask them "Do you approve of the government spying on you" and one hangs up, the other says No, I can say "50% of people polled were not against spying".
Slashdot Mirror
You ignored what I said. I said, why shouldn't someone contribute to a legislator that agrees with your position. In other words, they already believed what you did. your money isn't convincing them otherwise.
Question: Did microsoft contribute money to those that did not oppose the plan also?
Further, why shouldn't someone contribute to those legislators that agree with your position> That's how all campaign finance works. You support those you agree with, either financially or with voting or both.
While such a move would certainly hurt Microsoft a great deal. Think of the repercussions. Microsoft employs how many people in the EU? How many companies make money off of MS software? MS pulling out could cause a massive drop in the value of the Euro from all the side effects.
I don't think the EU can just ignore that.
No, I don't write faster than I type, but I write faster than I can use a fingerboard or the dial-keys. So, when i'm using it without a keyboard, handwriting recognition is very important.
Also, you can use a good bluetooth keyboard with this as well, so if you're going to be typing at a table or something, you can pull that out and use that instead. Also, the Q1 has a USB keyboard option that fits well in their carrying case, but I didn't get a chance to play with this configuration (I did use the Think Outside Stowaway Bluetooth Keyboard).
All in all, it was pretty impressive.
I guess I was referring to a tablet that's either a slate or a "hybrid". The Laptop convertibles are just stupid in my opinion, they're heavy and clunky. I would do better with a regular laptop and a portable wacom tablet.
I was comparing this against the Compaq tc1100, which is probably closest in my opinion to functionality.
Actually, I got to play with one over the weekend. The handwriting recognition was excellent. Without training, it read my chicken scratch quite accurately (not a single misread). The voice recognition required more training, so I didn't use that. Battery life was, as expected, about 2 hours, which was fine for me. There's supposed to be an extended battery coming out for it in the next few months, and i'm almost always near an outlet when i'd be using it.
Weight was fine. I didn't find it too heavy at all. It even played WoW quite well. The digitizer was a little slow to react, but that was about it. I was VERY impressed, considering it's half the cost of tablet PC and provides far more functionality than a pocket pc. Exactly what I was looking for.
I think i'll buy one when the LED backlit version comes out.
You confuse having 20% more lines of code with 20% new code. If you rewrite 50% of the existing code, perhaps even in fewer lines of code, then add 20% or more lines on top of that, you get the picture.
Hmm.. i'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Microsoft Basic for the Altair was custom written in assembly code. Even K&K gave Microsoft a nod for managing to create a versoin of basic that fit in 4K with room for programs. Of course it didn't have many of the features of the mainframe basics, but it was impressive for the time. Dartmouth Basic, on the other hand, was a much larger piece of work written for a completely different processor and architecture.
It's doubtful that, even if they had the full source to a mainframe basic interpreter, it would have been much use, other than as a general place to start. I know gates has admitted to dumpster diving for operating system listings, but to my knowledge he's never admitted to getting application source code that way.
I've used a lot of SCM's actually, including the expensive ones like ClearCase.
But I have used VSS extensively, and while there are many things I don't like about it. It's just not as bad as most people like to make out. I've had 150 developers with gigabytes of data and years worth of history across hundreds of projects, and given the caveats i gave in my previous message, it's worked very well.
I've never had a corrupted database, once I took remote dialup and WAN connections out of the equation. Use in these scenarios was relegated to SourceOffsite.
Yes, it has a lot of issues. Yes, it's branching model is weird and is limited. Yes, you need to run the analyzer tool a couple of times a month to fix minor issues before they become big ones. Yes, being network filesystem based makes it fragile and sensitive to network issues. My point was not to appologize for those shortcomings, but the point out that you should use the tool for what it can do effectively. If that's not enough for you, then use a different tool, but for many VSS is all they need.
BTW, i've never had a problem using multiple checkouts, so i'm not sure what you're referring to. yeah, you have to manage conflicts every now and again, big deal. It's very usable.
A yugo may work remarkably well if you just need to get from point a to point b, but not if you are trying to use it as a means of hauling freight. Subversion, on the other hand, is significantly more complex to use and requires a great deal more knowledge and configuration. It's a tradeoff.
I've looked at Trac, and there are a lot of problems with it from my perspective.
1) It doesn't seem to have attachments to work items
2) There isn't any way for submitters to track the items they've submitted
3) It's not database agnostic, which means adding yet another support headache when you might already have several databases (though this appears to be planned for the future)
4) No email integration (again, a planned feature)
5) If you look through the changelogs, there's been a *LOT* of SQL injection vulnerabilities, which means a poor overall architecture.
It's still got a long way to go in my opinion.
*sigh*
While SourceSafe certainly leaves a lot to desire, it's certainly adequate for most people. The majority of the "problem" people have are related to one thing, flaky networks. If you use SourceSafe over dialup or a connection which isn't reliable, then you can lose connection in mid-write, which will corrupt the database.
VSS 2005 provides a client-server web based engine which completely solves this problem from non-local use. There's also products like SourceOffsite that also deal with that issue.
If you regularly perform the analysis, have reliable connections or use the client/server options for unreliable connections, then VSS will work remarkably well.
That doesn't address it's limitations in other areas, of course, but the reliability aspect is largely the fault of whoever is maintaining it. You might argue that it should be robust enough to deal with these issues, but that's merely arguing that a square peg should be round.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Defective By Design site may have updated their page since his article was written?
A google search on the articles phrasing reveales a number of quotes that seem to indicate that they silently changed the wording, likely after they got criticized for it.
Uhhh.. no. OSX 10.0 shipped in March of 2001, 10.1 in September of 2001 (about the time of XP) which means that since XP shipped, only 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 have shipped, and when you consider that Microsoft diverted most of their resources from Longhorn to XP SP2, which shipped in 2004, they've really only been working on Longhorn in earnest for about 2 years, which largely just coincides with Panther and Tiger.
t tingEdge/t tingedge/
AAnd, if you notice, the amount of time it's taking apple to release each successive version of OSX is increasing. 6 months from 10.0 to 10.1, 11 Months from 10.1 to 10.2, 14 Months from 10.2 to 10.3, 16 Months from 10.3 to 10.4, and it's now been more than a year since 10.4 shipped and with the scheduled ship date of the end of the year, that means it will be at least 18 months until 10.5 hits (maybe longer). Although, it should be noted that Apple had significant work to do on 10.4 to introduce the intel version, so that's a mitigating factor.
And for the record, if you don't know what workflow is, maybe you should start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workflow
and then try:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/03/Cu
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/04/cu
No, Workflow foundation is not automator. Automator is a scripting language, more akin to PowerShell. Workflow foundation is a set of services to provide workflow integration to applications.
BitLocker and FileVault, while conceptually similar, are implemented very differently. BitLocker is a full drive encrypter, FileVault is more akin to the existing filesystem encryption in Windows, and only works for home directories.
Apple has NONE of Media Center's stuff by default. Oh, sure, it can play dvd's and mp3's, but not as a living room appliance. Yes, there are third party apps, but that's beside the point, Apple didn't have to create this for Tiger, and thus expend more resources, thus they could get it out the door faster.
I'm not going to write out descriptions of all that stuff, you can easily google any of it.
No, Tiger didn't include a fraction of what Vista includes. Examples (pardon the jargon, but what else are you going to use?): Avalon (Windows Presentation Foundation), Indigo (Windows Communication Foundation), Windows Workflow Foundation, 3D Video engine (though OSX already had that, it wasn't necessary for Tiger), BitLocker, SuperFetch, ReadyDrive, ReadyBoost, Compound TCP/IP stack, Media Center, Network projection, Meeting Space, etc.. etc.. etc...
I know everyone likes to laugh that Vista is just XP SP3, but it's not. There's a shit load of stuff there.
While it's true that Longhorn has evolved a great deal since the early demos, many of those features were presented back then. Example: This article by Paul Thurott back in 2002 lists many of these:
a .asp
. asp
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alph
And this review from 2003
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4008
Basically, these show things like the sidebar with widgets, talk about the search functionality (though at the time quicksearch was considered part of WinFS, so the talk is in that context). This was 2-3 years before Tiger, and a year before Panther.
Well, Tiger has only been out about about 9 months. Still, the point was that Apple could ship those features because 10.4 wasn't anywhere near the scope of Vista.
Actually, no. The annoying thing is that people like you will think apple invented all those things. Most of those features were initially introduced in early longhorn demo's more than 3 years ago. Apple saw them, copied them, and were able to get a new release of OSX out before Microsoft could, largely because Vista has a lot more to it than just those features that apple copied.
Seriously, I can't think of a *SINGLE* thing in Tiger that wasn't a copy of something else.
Actually, the Windows UI has largely been driven by the Office team for... well, as long as there's been an Office team. 3D buttons? Word had that before Windows. Common Dialogs? Again, Office. Movable tool bars? Office.
Note, i'm not saying Office or MS invented these things, just that Office had them before Windows, and Windows adopted them to adapt to Office.
There's a difference. Linux developers all have differing opinions on what the UI should be, and they all write their apps differently. Apple and Microsoft define a single UI standard that "most" apps follow. When Microsoft Rev's the standard, the apps follow suit... not so with Linux. Well, actually, that's not true.. many of them follow Microsoft or Apple as well ;)
There is actually significant debate about the utility of 'greying' versus 'hiding'. Users are often confused by greying. Oh, sure, they know it's disabled, but they don't know WHY it's disabled. so it frustrates them when they want it un-disabled and they can't figure out what incantation to give to make it do that. Hiding causes uses to focus more on the context than the function.
So, change is bad? UI Standards evolve. You seem to think that the UI was perfected in 1985 and should never change.
Ever heard of a thing called a "debugger"? It requires, at a minimum, the debugging privilege, which is as good as root because if you know what you're doing, youc an give yourself root with it.
And if I call 2 people, and ask them "Do you approve of the government spying on you" and one hangs up, the other says No, I can say "50% of people polled were not against spying".