Resources does not simply mean CPU time. It also means memory. Further, it's another process in the process table, and unless you ahve the O(1) scheduler running, it increases the amount of time the scheduler takes to run new processes.
Now, all of those things take only a fraction of a microsecond to accomplish, but it's still "wasted" if you're not using it.
Access is simply an application. When you open the database, it's just like opening a file in a word processor.
MySQL is a service that runs seperately from the application and must be started and stopped seperately. In most cases, the service is started at boot time and runs all the time, wasting resources unless you manually stop it.
I agree with you that lots of people use Oracle that don't need to. I also agree that MySQL is a fine database for many uses.
Access can handle concurrency with little trouble, it simply doesn't scale very well. It's impractical to have more than 10-20 concurrent users, primarily because the access drivers need physical file access and are not client/server.
MySQL has the advantage of scaling better than Access, but featurewise it's about on par.
Comparing PG w/ Access shows that you've never used PG.
I think you need to reread my message. I did not compare Postgre to Access. I compared MySQL to Access. While Access is not client/server, it has about the same feature set as MySQL.
Postgres is in the same league as MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others. It is not quite as tunable as Oracle, and Oracle can scale higher, but not higher enough to be in a completely different league.
Now you're just exagerating things. I said Postgre was a capable midrange database, which is what it is. those "limitations" you mention are what seperate an enterprise class dbms from a midrange one. Little things like replication, clustering, large memory (PAE) support, OLAP and other kinds of data mining tools. Hell, even features that I would consider "basic" in an enterprise class dbms are missing, such as an equivelent to DTS or Full Text search, not to mention woefully inadequate XML support.
Postgre essentially supports most of the ANSI standard, but that's not enough to make it "enterprise class". Merely performing well and having an acceptable optimizer are also not enough.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Postgre sucks. It's a very capable system, it's just not in the same class as Oracle or SQL Server, other than at the basic SQL level.
Adopt JBoss instead of WebLogic, save nearly $160K. Adopt Postgres or MySQL instead of Oracle, save $40K. end result: open source wins hands down, provided development costs are roughly comparable.
You've got to be kidding me. Postgre, while a capable midrange database is nowhere near the performance or capability of Oracle, and MySQL isn't even in the same universe given that it lacks such basic features as stored procedures and transactions. This isn't even counting all the "value add" that oracle provides with their support tools and programming environments.
If your needs can be met by MySQL or Postgre, sure... don't buy Oracle, but then you'd be stupid to buy Oracle even if those open source tools weren't available. You'd probably use Access on Windows instead.
As for JBoss vs. Weblogic, i don't have enough experience with either to make a valid comparison, but Weblogic is ceratinly a much more capable product by features alone.
Yes, you will pay real money for them but Windows XP Pro is $300 compared to Redhat at $180 is still a cost savings. A $120 savings per machine can add up quickly and doesn't even take office software into account.
You really don't know much about corporate pricing, do you? Most companies spend about $150 or less per seat for the OS
Making free software tax deductible will be implicitly admitting that software has value. And if it has value, it can be taxed. This means that anyone receiving said software will essentially be receiving a gift which, according to US tax laws, is taxable. Do you really want to be taxed for all the software you use?
But you and I both know that open-source developers are not starving, homeless, unclothed, unable to pay their bills. Strawman argument.
As was your original argument about feeding the world with one field of wheat. And yes, there are some developers that are largely "starving". While RMS seems to be making good money today, there were many years where he claimed to survive the entire year on only $3000.
Yet Bill Gates has billions of dollars of cash. We have IT CEOs flying around in private jets. Is this where the money is going? It's not paying for developers; it's paying for junkets and jaunts and jollies for the Rich White Men in control.
Umm.. I think you're forgetting that Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc.. make their money off the sale of stock, not their salary. Revenues from the sale of software do not contribute significantly to the bank accounts of these people (in fact, Bill Gates draws one of the lowest salaries of any CEO in the industry.)
This is not to say that Microsoft itself doesn't make an absurd amount of money, it does. But this is a function of them being a monopoly. If they had more reasonable sales they wouldn't have billions in the bank.
The reality is that software isn't nearly as expensive as you think it is. The fact that Linux was built by volunteers in their spare time really says it all. The true cost of developing software is cheap; Linux proves that. It's the support and maintenance of software that is expensive.
The reality is that you don't know the value of the time and effort being contributed to Linux. You do the people that have contributed to it a great disservice by dismissing their contributions as "cheap". The fact of the matter is, you're enjoying the fruit of many *THOUSANDS* of man hours worth of effort, equaling many billions of dollars worth of work if all of those people were being paid.
Nice dichotomy. Such a shame that it's false. Software development will always be in demand.
I didn't say it wouldn't. I said "good" software. Most software developed in-house is not good software, it tends to be "good enough" (if they're lucky) software. Since companies view internal software development as an expense, they want to pay as little as possible and will seldom pay for software to be perfect.
The idea that the only way of making money from software is by hiding the source and extracting a license-fee per copy of the binary is utter nonsense.
Really? It's pretty much been proven that in all but a few exception circumstances that that's the only way to make money on software. Even Red Hat is moving towards a licensing fee per copy, which is why they've dropped RHL and is concentrating on RHEL.
Companies are becoming increasingly less likely to spend the kind of money that original software development costs, even for internal use. Internal development staffs have been slashed over the last few years.
Linux was a best of breed UNIX before any of the "corporate contributors" paid the least attention. The KDE project delivered a usable desktop in 1997; that's an achievement the combined "might" of the UNIX vendors failed to deliver despite a decade headstart.
You have got to be kidding me. You call a system that couldn't scale beyond 4 processors "best of breed"? You call a system that had such a poor VM and scheduler that it required numerous rewrites to actually make them useable by todays standards "best of breed"?
KDE's first incarnation was total crap. It may have been "useable" but it was nowhere near "best of breed" in 1997. Further, KDE was based on the work of a corporate contributor (TrollTech) that was donating the code to make it happen.
Do you actually believe any of that nonsense?
I could ask the same of you. Best of breed indeed.
To put it another way, if by sewing a single shirt I could clothe the world's homeless, and by growing a single bushel of wheat I could feed the world's hungry, then I'd do both in an instant and I would never consider the cost to me. The benefit to the world is far greater than my personal loss.
Even if it costed you your entire lifes work? And the lifes work of all your friends, co-workers, and thousands of their friends? Even when you have to figure out some way to pay your own bills, feed yourself, and clothe yourself while doing this?
The part you seem to forget is that the cost develop software is monstrous. It takes thousands of man-years to develop something like the 2.6 kernel. It's great that these thousands of people are willing to give away their hard work for the profit of other companies, but that really doesn't mean that it's reasonable to expect that to be the norm in the world of software.
In order for "good" software to be created there must either be a viable market for software amortized over the number of copies sold (ie, you need to sell enough copies at a cost people are willing to pay to make back what you've spent and provide enough money to expand) or you need to have an army of loyal followers catalyzed against a common foe that will work for you for free and not demand any of your profits in the perhaps futile hope that when the enemy is vanquished that the world will be a nice place.
There is one thing that is fueling the vast majority of open source work these days: A combined concern about Microsoft and their products. I guarantee you that if MS did not exist, IBM, Sun, SGI, and most other corporate contributors wouldn't be doing so and Linux would still be in the stone ages of computing.
This leads to the inevitable question of, what happens when Microsoft is defeated? Well, likely the clans will turn on themselves and eat their young. Without a common enemny, the united forces will be reduced to bickering and infighting.
The fact of the matter is, as humans we're alwasy going to miss problems. Until software verification becomes so completely automated this will continue.
One can say the same about many products, including Linux. We shouldn't have seen the kinds of problems we saw in the early 2.4 kernels. We shouldn't be seeing the kinds of problems from Sendmail, OpenSSH, wu-ftpd, and a host of other "usual suspects" either, but we do.
Open source tends to ship early and often just as much as closed source. We just hide behind 0.x version numbers for years and tell anyone that has problems that they shouldn't be using unstable versions.
What you say is true, but the person you are responding to also has a point. Products of all kinds (not just software) are often shipped with known defects (and many unknown ones) for a variety of reasons. Ed Yourdon in one of his books (either "Deathmarh" or Rise and Resurection of the American Programmer, I don't remember which) advocates that there's such a thing as "good enough" software. This is software that isn't perfect, but is cheaper and faster to market than a competitors that strives for perfection. This is one way that the US has dominated the software market for the last 20+ years and fought off the off-shore invasions that Yourdon predicted in his book "The decline and fall of the american programmer".
Frankly, "good enough" software is still the norm for most things, but the bar for "good enough" has risen quite substantially in the public network world due to the exponensial increases in penetration attempts (and successes).
Closed source commerical companies aren't the only ones to do this either. Look at most Open Source software, which pretty much ships something as soon as it can compile and then slowly morphs into a solid product. Frankly, you're never going to find all the bugs in your software in the lab. It has to be exposed to the billions of permutations of end-user systems to find most of the problems. A good example was the 2.4 kernel, which was still going through major "beta" changes up until about 2.4.14, despite supposedly being "stable".
Oh, you've got to be kidding me. You really think that this quote from his post:
"Do we expect people to upgrade after 36 months, or do we take any opportunity to mention that we think Microsoft sucks (of which everyone in the audience is perfectly aware)"
Is an "impassioned defense of MSFT"? Do you honestly think just because someone works for a company that they have no rights to opinions anymore?
The fact of the matter is, he is right. The article is *NOT* what it claims to be. It's not any kind of analysis, nor is it even a discussion of Linux security at all. I was hoping for a reasoned analysis of linux performance in the security field in 2003, and frankly, all I got was a bunch of soapbox zealoting.
You seem to be objecting to the fact that he was critical of an article that's critical of a Linux competitor, and seem to not care if the article has any merit in and of itself. Here's a hint, criticism of things that really do need it is your friend, not your enemy.
The troll here is you, and if I had mod points right now I'd so mod you. You're a prime example of the kind of advocate that the Linux communtiy doesn't need. You're as bad as the author of the article for misrepresenting it in the first place.
Sadly, this isn't what most people assume it means. Reasoning's software only finds "obvious" defects, such as null pointer assignments. It doesn't (and can't) determine if a bit of code does what it's supposed to do, only that it does whatever it does without any danger of crashing.
Basically, it's no different from running your code through BoundsChecker or CodeWizard, or any number of other such tools that check for obvious errors (Null pointers, obvious buffer overflows, dangling references, etc..)
While I have no doubt that MySQL's code is perhaps "cleaner" than your typical unpublished code, I have plenty of doubt that MySQL's code is "better" than unpublished code in terms of efficiency, logic errors, etc..
Also, Only NT4 and 3.5 are listed because C2 is no longer the standard. The Common Criteria has replaced it, and Windows 2000 is evaluated under that (also in Standalone and networked environments)
XP and 2003 haven't yet been evaluated to my knowledge, but then again it usually takes a good 18 months to accomplish such tests. I doubt MS will submit XP until after SP2 is released, and 2003 will probably wait for SP1, though MS is most likely working on the evaluations.
This is not to say that the certifications really mean anything, but if you disparage them, you should do so for real reasons. The "standalone" argument dates from before the 1999 evaluations of NT4 SP6a in which networked environments were certified.
What makes me "wonder" is why everyone is accepting speculation on the part of an outside analyst as definitive proof that Microsoft is doing anything other than a dilbertesque reorg.
It's not all wonderful. Screenwriter Ron Moore wanted to bring a more grown-up Galactica to his audience, but he's apparantly confused grown-up with gratuitious. Sex works much better when it's done dramatically, instead of the "hey watch us get it on!" style that Moore forces on us. He is perhaps striving to show us the sexual energy between the characters, but really all it does is make us wonder when the low quality porno music is going to kick in.
I can't believe so few people totally missed the point of those "sex" scenes. While sure, a little adult theming gets better ratings, they were also trying to portray something important that is hinted at in many ways. Cylons are immature, and don't have the years of experience that humans gain to control and understand their emotions.
The sex scenes we see (really just one, with a few other being a bit more subtle) is that the cylons are needy creatures, desiring the affirmation and love of their creators, and like an abused child, often goes about this task of seeking acceptance in entirely the wrong way.
Note how Number 6 says that all she wants is for Baltar to love her. Note how Boomer seems to desire the acceptance of Boxey and her boyfriend (can't remember his name).
These new cylons are, in effect, human. And they don't know how to deal with the emotions, hormones, and baggage that goes along with being human. This will be an important plot element if it ever makes it to a series, and one that I think they portrayed quite well.
I worked from home for nearly 4 years. It took a while to get used to things, and I found I would go out for walks, the store, etc.. just to interact with people on occasion.
Or, you can do what Dilbert did, and hold staff meetings with your pets. At least his pets talk. Mine don't.
Ugh. Having used Delphi and BCB quite extensively, I can tell you with much certainty that it only helps you get trivial programs up and running fast.
The fact is, the VCL is a rather restrictive framework. It's not designed for flexibility, and most of it's components are a pain to try and extend.
The "component" model is source based, and easily broken at the binary level. In fact, there's no way to be certain that any two compiles of a component library will be binary compatible.
If all you're doing is slapping some controls on a form, hooking them up to a database, and doing some "me too" style UI's rather than anything unique or innovative, then it's fine.
RAD tends to lack maintainability. And this is a big problem which Delphi doesn't address.
I have to wonder what the german cities that have invested heavily in switching to SuSE precisely to remove independance from US based software are thinking, now that SuSE is going to be US Based software.
They're probably wishing they took Ballmers offer now.
The picture was already posted, and as has been said, it's not a particularly gross security risk. You can't take it back once it's been posted to the internet, so removing it would have no real value. Further, they have no right to ask him to remove it, since it's not on any microsoft owned property.
They can, however, fire him because of this. Assuming that taking pictures without permission on campus is against the rules of his employment, they're probably firing him to prevent him from ever doing it again with more sensitive topics.
To put it another way. Suppose someone you invited comes into your house and starts juggling nitroglycerine. You find about this after the fact, and everything came out ok. Would you be inclined to invite him back, considering his disregard for your property? Probably not.
"Nitroglycerin fan barred from slashdot posters home for juggling" would read the tagline.
It's actually C++ ++, however, the ++'s are superimposed and slightly vertically offset. Notice how the # sympol is actually 4 +'s. This is a little known joke that the C# developers used that seems to not be very widespread.
There is nothing Windows-centric about C#. It's a very useful language, designed by a very good language architect (Anders Hejlsberg, one of the primary architects of Pascal at Borland).
Now, various parts of the.NET framework are certainly Windows-centric, but C# itself is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Resources does not simply mean CPU time. It also means memory. Further, it's another process in the process table, and unless you ahve the O(1) scheduler running, it increases the amount of time the scheduler takes to run new processes.
Now, all of those things take only a fraction of a microsecond to accomplish, but it's still "wasted" if you're not using it.
Access is simply an application. When you open the database, it's just like opening a file in a word processor.
MySQL is a service that runs seperately from the application and must be started and stopped seperately. In most cases, the service is started at boot time and runs all the time, wasting resources unless you manually stop it.
I agree with you that lots of people use Oracle that don't need to. I also agree that MySQL is a fine database for many uses.
Access can handle concurrency with little trouble, it simply doesn't scale very well. It's impractical to have more than 10-20 concurrent users, primarily because the access drivers need physical file access and are not client/server.
MySQL has the advantage of scaling better than Access, but featurewise it's about on par.
Comparing PG w/ Access shows that you've never used PG.
I think you need to reread my message. I did not compare Postgre to Access. I compared MySQL to Access. While Access is not client/server, it has about the same feature set as MySQL.
Postgres is in the same league as MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others. It is not quite as tunable as Oracle, and Oracle can scale higher, but not higher enough to be in a completely different league.
Now you're just exagerating things. I said Postgre was a capable midrange database, which is what it is. those "limitations" you mention are what seperate an enterprise class dbms from a midrange one. Little things like replication, clustering, large memory (PAE) support, OLAP and other kinds of data mining tools. Hell, even features that I would consider "basic" in an enterprise class dbms are missing, such as an equivelent to DTS or Full Text search, not to mention woefully inadequate XML support.
Postgre essentially supports most of the ANSI standard, but that's not enough to make it "enterprise class". Merely performing well and having an acceptable optimizer are also not enough.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Postgre sucks. It's a very capable system, it's just not in the same class as Oracle or SQL Server, other than at the basic SQL level.
Adopt JBoss instead of WebLogic, save nearly $160K. Adopt Postgres or MySQL instead of Oracle, save $40K. end result: open source wins hands down, provided development costs are roughly comparable.
You've got to be kidding me. Postgre, while a capable midrange database is nowhere near the performance or capability of Oracle, and MySQL isn't even in the same universe given that it lacks such basic features as stored procedures and transactions. This isn't even counting all the "value add" that oracle provides with their support tools and programming environments.
If your needs can be met by MySQL or Postgre, sure... don't buy Oracle, but then you'd be stupid to buy Oracle even if those open source tools weren't available. You'd probably use Access on Windows instead.
As for JBoss vs. Weblogic, i don't have enough experience with either to make a valid comparison, but Weblogic is ceratinly a much more capable product by features alone.
Yes, you will pay real money for them but Windows XP Pro is $300 compared to Redhat at $180 is still a cost savings. A $120 savings per machine can add up quickly and doesn't even take office software into account.
You really don't know much about corporate pricing, do you? Most companies spend about $150 or less per seat for the OS
Making free software tax deductible will be implicitly admitting that software has value. And if it has value, it can be taxed. This means that anyone receiving said software will essentially be receiving a gift which, according to US tax laws, is taxable. Do you really want to be taxed for all the software you use?
But you and I both know that open-source developers are not starving, homeless, unclothed, unable to pay their bills. Strawman argument.
As was your original argument about feeding the world with one field of wheat. And yes, there are some developers that are largely "starving". While RMS seems to be making good money today, there were many years where he claimed to survive the entire year on only $3000.
Yet Bill Gates has billions of dollars of cash. We have IT CEOs flying around in private jets. Is this where the money is going? It's not paying for developers; it's paying for junkets and jaunts and jollies for the Rich White Men in control.
Umm.. I think you're forgetting that Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc.. make their money off the sale of stock, not their salary. Revenues from the sale of software do not contribute significantly to the bank accounts of these people (in fact, Bill Gates draws one of the lowest salaries of any CEO in the industry.)
This is not to say that Microsoft itself doesn't make an absurd amount of money, it does. But this is a function of them being a monopoly. If they had more reasonable sales they wouldn't have billions in the bank.
The reality is that software isn't nearly as expensive as you think it is. The fact that Linux was built by volunteers in their spare time really says it all. The true cost of developing software is cheap; Linux proves that. It's the support and maintenance of software that is expensive.
The reality is that you don't know the value of the time and effort being contributed to Linux. You do the people that have contributed to it a great disservice by dismissing their contributions as "cheap". The fact of the matter is, you're enjoying the fruit of many *THOUSANDS* of man hours worth of effort, equaling many billions of dollars worth of work if all of those people were being paid.
Nice dichotomy. Such a shame that it's false. Software development will always be in demand.
I didn't say it wouldn't. I said "good" software. Most software developed in-house is not good software, it tends to be "good enough" (if they're lucky) software. Since companies view internal software development as an expense, they want to pay as little as possible and will seldom pay for software to be perfect.
The idea that the only way of making money from software is by hiding the source and extracting a license-fee per copy of the binary is utter nonsense.
Really? It's pretty much been proven that in all but a few exception circumstances that that's the only way to make money on software. Even Red Hat is moving towards a licensing fee per copy, which is why they've dropped RHL and is concentrating on RHEL.
Companies are becoming increasingly less likely to spend the kind of money that original software development costs, even for internal use. Internal development staffs have been slashed over the last few years.
Linux was a best of breed UNIX before any of the "corporate contributors" paid the least attention. The KDE project delivered a usable desktop in 1997; that's an achievement the combined "might" of the UNIX vendors failed to deliver despite a decade headstart.
You have got to be kidding me. You call a system that couldn't scale beyond 4 processors "best of breed"? You call a system that had such a poor VM and scheduler that it required numerous rewrites to actually make them useable by todays standards "best of breed"?
KDE's first incarnation was total crap. It may have been "useable" but it was nowhere near "best of breed" in 1997. Further, KDE was based on the work of a corporate contributor (TrollTech) that was donating the code to make it happen.
Do you actually believe any of that nonsense?
I could ask the same of you. Best of breed indeed.
To put it another way, if by sewing a single shirt I could clothe the world's homeless, and by growing a single bushel of wheat I could feed the world's hungry, then I'd do both in an instant and I would never consider the cost to me. The benefit to the world is far greater than my personal loss.
Even if it costed you your entire lifes work? And the lifes work of all your friends, co-workers, and thousands of their friends? Even when you have to figure out some way to pay your own bills, feed yourself, and clothe yourself while doing this?
The part you seem to forget is that the cost develop software is monstrous. It takes thousands of man-years to develop something like the 2.6 kernel. It's great that these thousands of people are willing to give away their hard work for the profit of other companies, but that really doesn't mean that it's reasonable to expect that to be the norm in the world of software.
In order for "good" software to be created there must either be a viable market for software amortized over the number of copies sold (ie, you need to sell enough copies at a cost people are willing to pay to make back what you've spent and provide enough money to expand) or you need to have an army of loyal followers catalyzed against a common foe that will work for you for free and not demand any of your profits in the perhaps futile hope that when the enemy is vanquished that the world will be a nice place.
There is one thing that is fueling the vast majority of open source work these days: A combined concern about Microsoft and their products. I guarantee you that if MS did not exist, IBM, Sun, SGI, and most other corporate contributors wouldn't be doing so and Linux would still be in the stone ages of computing.
This leads to the inevitable question of, what happens when Microsoft is defeated? Well, likely the clans will turn on themselves and eat their young. Without a common enemny, the united forces will be reduced to bickering and infighting.
In a way, Linux owes it's progress to Microsoft.
The fact of the matter is, as humans we're alwasy going to miss problems. Until software verification becomes so completely automated this will continue.
One can say the same about many products, including Linux. We shouldn't have seen the kinds of problems we saw in the early 2.4 kernels. We shouldn't be seeing the kinds of problems from Sendmail, OpenSSH, wu-ftpd, and a host of other "usual suspects" either, but we do.
Open source tends to ship early and often just as much as closed source. We just hide behind 0.x version numbers for years and tell anyone that has problems that they shouldn't be using unstable versions.
What you say is true, but the person you are responding to also has a point. Products of all kinds (not just software) are often shipped with known defects (and many unknown ones) for a variety of reasons. Ed Yourdon in one of his books (either "Deathmarh" or Rise and Resurection of the American Programmer, I don't remember which) advocates that there's such a thing as "good enough" software. This is software that isn't perfect, but is cheaper and faster to market than a competitors that strives for perfection. This is one way that the US has dominated the software market for the last 20+ years and fought off the off-shore invasions that Yourdon predicted in his book "The decline and fall of the american programmer".
Frankly, "good enough" software is still the norm for most things, but the bar for "good enough" has risen quite substantially in the public network world due to the exponensial increases in penetration attempts (and successes).
Closed source commerical companies aren't the only ones to do this either. Look at most Open Source software, which pretty much ships something as soon as it can compile and then slowly morphs into a solid product. Frankly, you're never going to find all the bugs in your software in the lab. It has to be exposed to the billions of permutations of end-user systems to find most of the problems. A good example was the 2.4 kernel, which was still going through major "beta" changes up until about 2.4.14, despite supposedly being "stable".
Oh, you've got to be kidding me. You really think that this quote from his post:
"Do we expect people to upgrade after 36 months, or do we take any opportunity to mention that we think Microsoft sucks (of which everyone in the audience is perfectly aware)"
Is an "impassioned defense of MSFT"? Do you honestly think just because someone works for a company that they have no rights to opinions anymore?
The fact of the matter is, he is right. The article is *NOT* what it claims to be. It's not any kind of analysis, nor is it even a discussion of Linux security at all. I was hoping for a reasoned analysis of linux performance in the security field in 2003, and frankly, all I got was a bunch of soapbox zealoting.
You seem to be objecting to the fact that he was critical of an article that's critical of a Linux competitor, and seem to not care if the article has any merit in and of itself. Here's a hint, criticism of things that really do need it is your friend, not your enemy.
The troll here is you, and if I had mod points right now I'd so mod you. You're a prime example of the kind of advocate that the Linux communtiy doesn't need. You're as bad as the author of the article for misrepresenting it in the first place.
Sadly, this isn't what most people assume it means. Reasoning's software only finds "obvious" defects, such as null pointer assignments. It doesn't (and can't) determine if a bit of code does what it's supposed to do, only that it does whatever it does without any danger of crashing.
Basically, it's no different from running your code through BoundsChecker or CodeWizard, or any number of other such tools that check for obvious errors (Null pointers, obvious buffer overflows, dangling references, etc..)
While I have no doubt that MySQL's code is perhaps "cleaner" than your typical unpublished code, I have plenty of doubt that MySQL's code is "better" than unpublished code in terms of efficiency, logic errors, etc..
Actually, you might want to read the links you reference. NT was evaluated in both standalone and networked environments.
. asp?url=/technet/security/news/c2faq.asp
a tion/news/bulletins/win2kcomcrit.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
Also, Only NT4 and 3.5 are listed because C2 is no longer the standard. The Common Criteria has replaced it, and Windows 2000 is evaluated under that (also in Standalone and networked environments)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evalu
XP and 2003 haven't yet been evaluated to my knowledge, but then again it usually takes a good 18 months to accomplish such tests. I doubt MS will submit XP until after SP2 is released, and 2003 will probably wait for SP1, though MS is most likely working on the evaluations.
This is not to say that the certifications really mean anything, but if you disparage them, you should do so for real reasons. The "standalone" argument dates from before the 1999 evaluations of NT4 SP6a in which networked environments were certified.
What makes me "wonder" is why everyone is accepting speculation on the part of an outside analyst as definitive proof that Microsoft is doing anything other than a dilbertesque reorg.
No.
DS1 is the circuit either a T1 or E1 rides on. E1's are the european equivelent to at T1. DS1 is the raw circuit.
I can't believe so few people totally missed the point of those "sex" scenes. While sure, a little adult theming gets better ratings, they were also trying to portray something important that is hinted at in many ways. Cylons are immature, and don't have the years of experience that humans gain to control and understand their emotions.
The sex scenes we see (really just one, with a few other being a bit more subtle) is that the cylons are needy creatures, desiring the affirmation and love of their creators, and like an abused child, often goes about this task of seeking acceptance in entirely the wrong way.
Note how Number 6 says that all she wants is for Baltar to love her. Note how Boomer seems to desire the acceptance of Boxey and her boyfriend (can't remember his name).
These new cylons are, in effect, human. And they don't know how to deal with the emotions, hormones, and baggage that goes along with being human. This will be an important plot element if it ever makes it to a series, and one that I think they portrayed quite well.
So you're soaking up your entire network bandwidth with display. What about people that actually need their network for.. you know.. networking?
When a server gets "lost", you can track it by it's radio signature.
I worked from home for nearly 4 years. It took a while to get used to things, and I found I would go out for walks, the store, etc.. just to interact with people on occasion.
Or, you can do what Dilbert did, and hold staff meetings with your pets. At least his pets talk. Mine don't.
Ugh. Having used Delphi and BCB quite extensively, I can tell you with much certainty that it only helps you get trivial programs up and running fast.
The fact is, the VCL is a rather restrictive framework. It's not designed for flexibility, and most of it's components are a pain to try and extend.
The "component" model is source based, and easily broken at the binary level. In fact, there's no way to be certain that any two compiles of a component library will be binary compatible.
If all you're doing is slapping some controls on a form, hooking them up to a database, and doing some "me too" style UI's rather than anything unique or innovative, then it's fine.
RAD tends to lack maintainability. And this is a big problem which Delphi doesn't address.
I have to wonder what the german cities that have invested heavily in switching to SuSE precisely to remove independance from US based software are thinking, now that SuSE is going to be US Based software.
They're probably wishing they took Ballmers offer now.
The picture was already posted, and as has been said, it's not a particularly gross security risk. You can't take it back once it's been posted to the internet, so removing it would have no real value. Further, they have no right to ask him to remove it, since it's not on any microsoft owned property.
They can, however, fire him because of this. Assuming that taking pictures without permission on campus is against the rules of his employment, they're probably firing him to prevent him from ever doing it again with more sensitive topics.
To put it another way. Suppose someone you invited comes into your house and starts juggling nitroglycerine. You find about this after the fact, and everything came out ok. Would you be inclined to invite him back, considering his disregard for your property? Probably not.
"Nitroglycerin fan barred from slashdot posters home for juggling" would read the tagline.
It's actually C++ ++, however, the ++'s are superimposed and slightly vertically offset. Notice how the # sympol is actually 4 +'s. This is a little known joke that the C# developers used that seems to not be very widespread.
There is nothing Windows-centric about C#. It's a very useful language, designed by a very good language architect (Anders Hejlsberg, one of the primary architects of Pascal at Borland).
.NET framework are certainly Windows-centric, but C# itself is not.
Now, various parts of the