Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers"
The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.
Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect. And the argument was about compatibility with Java, a closed technology (at the time) owned entirely by Sun. It was not a standard.
The link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.
I'd say the bias is yours, since nothing you've said about this is, in fact, true. As in, you know, supported by fact.
IE6 was actually quite good. It actually had better CSS 1.0 support than Mozilla or Opera. CSS 2 was lacking, of course, but CSS2 had only been out for about a year when IE6 began development. CSS2 had so many problems though, that they finally had to give in and create CSS2.1 that's a subset of CSS2 because *nobody* fully implemented CSS2, not even today.
Yes, IE6 is old and dated and crusty, but in 1999 it was the new hotness in comparison.
What universe do you live in? That never happened. MS originally lost the DOJ case in regards to browser tying, but that had nothing to do with standards compliance. Especially if you consider there was no other standards conformant browser out there (Mozilla had just started development)
The tying argument was overturned on appeal, though and that had nothing to do with jackson's behavior, the appeals court found no evidence to support the claim.
Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.
In Web developerland, whatever the current standard is, has always been the standard, and thus anything that doesn't conform to it is "broken". This ignores the fact that other standards existed before the current standard, and that the meaning of the standards have even changed (CSS2.1 for instance, redefines a great deal of CSS2).
Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.
However, IE6's major failing is simply that it did not evolve. People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined). Mozilla was likewise broken in many such ways, but they evolved and fixed their problems over time. It's like calling a car that requires leaded gasoline "broken" because all you can find is unleaded gas today. It's not broken, it's just out of date.
Yes, it's frustrating that there is this huge legacy burden on web developers, but please people, stop rewriting history. Stop forming the perception filter that turns you into conspiracy theory spouting retards with no concept of how the web actually was created. (appologies to any real conspiracy theory spouting handi-capable people reading this message, i'm an insensitive clod).
While the OS is open source, many of the key applications are not, and need to be licensed. For instance, the Android Marketplace. While ann android without the marketplace isn't as useless as an iPhone with the AppStore, it makes it much less convenient.
There is Mono of course but there are potentially serious legal issues and I suspect many companies are quite dubious about using it.
Only partially true. You can still write GUI apps that use the Win32 API. It just doesn't include MFC, and WTL is a free download and provides much of the MFC functionality without the legacy (read pre-iso) crap.
There's also tools like mingw and what not that are free. If you want device drivers though, you largely need the real compiler.. but it does come (command line version) with Express.
in 2004 you were largely correct (although you could get the.net framework and tools for free, and use tools like SharpDevelop for free).
In 2005 that all changed with the release of Visual Studio Express editions, including SQL Express. It's not "crippled", it just doesn't have all the features the high end has (which mysql doesn't have either). Nowadays, you even get SSIS and SSRS available for free from MS in th express version (but it's not in the bundle, you ahve to download it seperately).
The tools are not expensive. The high end tools are, because they include stuff like Team Foundation Server, and advanced testing tools, etc.. none of which are needed to develop software for the average person. You can develop just fine with the free Visual Studio Express versions.
And no, the runtimes are NOT a moving target. There have been 3 versions in the last 10 years. 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0. Everything else was just new frameworks, like adding Rails to Ruby. There were almost no breaking changes between 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. Apps written to for 2.0 run just fine if they target 3.5, because 3.5 is still 2.0 runtime. 4.0 changes things a bit, but still.. most code works fine on 4.0.
There is Mono of course but there are potentially serious legal issues and I suspect many companies are quite dubious about using it.
No, there are no "serious legal issues" related to Mono, other than in the minds of free software developers to use as as a boogey man to scare free software developers at bedtime. And no, no companies are "quite dubious aobut using it", at least not for legal reasons. Mostly, it's compatibility reasons if they don't want to use it.
Corporations understand contracts and licensing, this does not scare them. Idealogues scare them. And if anything related to legal reasons is stopping them, it's the idea that idealogues might scare free software companies into dropping Mono for BS legal reasons.
As for mobile, Microsoft has the compact framework, which also exists for mono on other mobile platforms (not iPhone obviously).
Mobile doesn't matter much though, as most mobile platforms have a lot of vendor lock-in, but it iPhone, Android, Symbian, WebOS, etc.. so that argument is largely moot. Android is, obstensibly, Java based, but it's so specialized to Android, apps you write for it won't port easily.
First,.net 2.0-3.5 were all the same version of.NET, they just added new libraries to the mix, they all ran on the same base CLR. 4.0 is the first version since 2.0 was released to run on a new CLR and have any massive changes, so really 5 years is not "too little time to adjust".
Second, Linq to Sql is not deprecated. It's still fully supported, and is still the most commonly used database layer, which is pretty big considering nHibernate and what not have a lot of headstart. EF is not the "replacement" of L2S, it's merely a different model. a full ORM rather than the more simplistic L2S approach. That's not to say that L2S won't someday go away, but there is no plan for it to do so anytime within the foreseeable future. It's just too popular.
Also, EF was released at the same time L2S (Well, around the same time.. came slightly later) was, so it's kind of silly to say EF is replacing it. Lots of people don't need EF, and L2S works just fine for them.
Finally, the tools *ARE* cheap. Free in fact. Visual Studio Express can build a lot of stuff, it's just missing the more advanced support tools, like allowing IDE add-ins and Advanced Unit testing.
Microsoft also does NOT want to move to a yearly subscription and release, they did that once before.. in fact, it was a quarterly based subscription, but they found it was too difficult to keep up and, as you point out, people don't want to move tools that quickly. They have moved away from it, though they are moving towards an MSDN subscription model, which doesn't guarantee releases in any given time frame.
The operating system manages the hardware, and provides an interface between the hardware and applications. Everything else is an application (including most libraries, since they're just reusable parts of applications).
The FSF disagrees with you. For example, they consider the shell, glibc, and a raft of other utilities to be part of the "OS".
In particular, they consider the "os" to be the userland portion, and those things that "ship with" the OS. They consider the kernel to be that which you describe.
Only caveat is I can't run Compiz at the same time because it doesn't handle the layout/resolution changes properly.
That's a pretty big caveat, and i'd bet a lot of other apps don't handle it properly either (rdesktop i'm looking at you).
Linux has always had flaky multi-monitor support, even if you fix this, there's still a dozen other issues to deal if not more. Full screen apps tend to stretch across both screens, for instance (see my previous rdesktop comment). Don't even get me started on the fact that xinerama doesn't support 3D on all monitors.
None that i'm aware of. Same with most VOIP services. Skype has encryption, but they also tap peoples calls at the drop of a supeona.. Which is not a good thing even if you're not doing anything wrong (there are lots of people in jails and prisons for things they didn't do based on evidence which "seems to fit")
Indeed. I bet there is a very large percentage of these "misconfigured" SSL certs that are in the list for this very reason. Just because you can get to an IP by a given domain name doesn't mean that's the domain it's intended to use SSL with.
Also, think about all the millions of firewalls and routers out there with enabled WAN access and a bogus ssl cert just to make it work. Think of all the development servers, think of all the self-signed certs (which whould show up as invalid to the researchers because they're not configured to accept the self-signed cert).
I would highly doubt any mroe than 20% of those "misconfigured" servers are actually misconfigured ssl certs for real sites.
While he may own a large amount of stock, possibly more than anyone else (too lazy to look it up right now), he isn't a majority shareholder. Far from it. Yes, he has a large voice if he wants to, but it just a voice, not a authority.
Consider the distance of the entire arm length is nearly 3 feet for most people. Holding the device out at arms length down, you would be holding the device at about 2.5' and just below the groin. Moving up 1 foot is the lower chest, or about 18".
I just measured, and from the top of my shoulders to my navel is 22", add another 3 or 4 to get to eye level when looking down, that's more than 2 feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers"
The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.
Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect. And the argument was about compatibility with Java, a closed technology (at the time) owned entirely by Sun. It was not a standard.
The link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.
I'd say the bias is yours, since nothing you've said about this is, in fact, true. As in, you know, supported by fact.
IE6 was actually quite good. It actually had better CSS 1.0 support than Mozilla or Opera. CSS 2 was lacking, of course, but CSS2 had only been out for about a year when IE6 began development. CSS2 had so many problems though, that they finally had to give in and create CSS2.1 that's a subset of CSS2 because *nobody* fully implemented CSS2, not even today.
Yes, IE6 is old and dated and crusty, but in 1999 it was the new hotness in comparison.
Uhh... what?
What universe do you live in? That never happened. MS originally lost the DOJ case in regards to browser tying, but that had nothing to do with standards compliance. Especially if you consider there was no other standards conformant browser out there (Mozilla had just started development)
The tying argument was overturned on appeal, though and that had nothing to do with jackson's behavior, the appeals court found no evidence to support the claim.
Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.
In Web developerland, whatever the current standard is, has always been the standard, and thus anything that doesn't conform to it is "broken". This ignores the fact that other standards existed before the current standard, and that the meaning of the standards have even changed (CSS2.1 for instance, redefines a great deal of CSS2).
Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.
However, IE6's major failing is simply that it did not evolve. People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined). Mozilla was likewise broken in many such ways, but they evolved and fixed their problems over time. It's like calling a car that requires leaded gasoline "broken" because all you can find is unleaded gas today. It's not broken, it's just out of date.
Yes, it's frustrating that there is this huge legacy burden on web developers, but please people, stop rewriting history. Stop forming the perception filter that turns you into conspiracy theory spouting retards with no concept of how the web actually was created. (appologies to any real conspiracy theory spouting handi-capable people reading this message, i'm an insensitive clod).
cause openmoko sucks?
Seriously. Not a troll. It's not ready for primetime.
While the OS is open source, many of the key applications are not, and need to be licensed. For instance, the Android Marketplace. While ann android without the marketplace isn't as useless as an iPhone with the AppStore, it makes it much less convenient.
Only partially true. You can still write GUI apps that use the Win32 API. It just doesn't include MFC, and WTL is a free download and provides much of the MFC functionality without the legacy (read pre-iso) crap.
There's also tools like mingw and what not that are free. If you want device drivers though, you largely need the real compiler.. but it does come (command line version) with Express.
No, not crippled. They just don't have all the bells and whistles.
Why do you need a spare 2K? Microsoft will give you all the tools, including WIndows Server, for free.
in 2004 you were largely correct (although you could get the .net framework and tools for free, and use tools like SharpDevelop for free).
In 2005 that all changed with the release of Visual Studio Express editions, including SQL Express. It's not "crippled", it just doesn't have all the features the high end has (which mysql doesn't have either). Nowadays, you even get SSIS and SSRS available for free from MS in th express version (but it's not in the bundle, you ahve to download it seperately).
That hasn't seemed to have stopped Oracle.
The tools are not expensive. The high end tools are, because they include stuff like Team Foundation Server, and advanced testing tools, etc.. none of which are needed to develop software for the average person. You can develop just fine with the free Visual Studio Express versions.
And no, the runtimes are NOT a moving target. There have been 3 versions in the last 10 years. 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0. Everything else was just new frameworks, like adding Rails to Ruby. There were almost no breaking changes between 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. Apps written to for 2.0 run just fine if they target 3.5, because 3.5 is still 2.0 runtime. 4.0 changes things a bit, but still.. most code works fine on 4.0.
And there's no such thing as 1.3.
No, there are no "serious legal issues" related to Mono, other than in the minds of free software developers to use as as a boogey man to scare free software developers at bedtime. And no, no companies are "quite dubious aobut using it", at least not for legal reasons. Mostly, it's compatibility reasons if they don't want to use it.
Corporations understand contracts and licensing, this does not scare them. Idealogues scare them. And if anything related to legal reasons is stopping them, it's the idea that idealogues might scare free software companies into dropping Mono for BS legal reasons.
As for mobile, Microsoft has the compact framework, which also exists for mono on other mobile platforms (not iPhone obviously).
Mobile doesn't matter much though, as most mobile platforms have a lot of vendor lock-in, but it iPhone, Android, Symbian, WebOS, etc.. so that argument is largely moot. Android is, obstensibly, Java based, but it's so specialized to Android, apps you write for it won't port easily.
Wow, you really missed the boat on that one.
First, .net 2.0-3.5 were all the same version of .NET, they just added new libraries to the mix, they all ran on the same base CLR. 4.0 is the first version since 2.0 was released to run on a new CLR and have any massive changes, so really 5 years is not "too little time to adjust".
Second, Linq to Sql is not deprecated. It's still fully supported, and is still the most commonly used database layer, which is pretty big considering nHibernate and what not have a lot of headstart. EF is not the "replacement" of L2S, it's merely a different model. a full ORM rather than the more simplistic L2S approach. That's not to say that L2S won't someday go away, but there is no plan for it to do so anytime within the foreseeable future. It's just too popular.
Also, EF was released at the same time L2S (Well, around the same time.. came slightly later) was, so it's kind of silly to say EF is replacing it. Lots of people don't need EF, and L2S works just fine for them.
Finally, the tools *ARE* cheap. Free in fact. Visual Studio Express can build a lot of stuff, it's just missing the more advanced support tools, like allowing IDE add-ins and Advanced Unit testing.
Microsoft also does NOT want to move to a yearly subscription and release, they did that once before.. in fact, it was a quarterly based subscription, but they found it was too difficult to keep up and, as you point out, people don't want to move tools that quickly. They have moved away from it, though they are moving towards an MSDN subscription model, which doesn't guarantee releases in any given time frame.
Not according to the FSF.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel
The FSF disagrees with you. For example, they consider the shell, glibc, and a raft of other utilities to be part of the "OS".
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#osvskernel
In particular, they consider the "os" to be the userland portion, and those things that "ship with" the OS. They consider the kernel to be that which you describe.
That's not a pointer, that's an error code.
That's a pretty big caveat, and i'd bet a lot of other apps don't handle it properly either (rdesktop i'm looking at you).
Linux has always had flaky multi-monitor support, even if you fix this, there's still a dozen other issues to deal if not more. Full screen apps tend to stretch across both screens, for instance (see my previous rdesktop comment). Don't even get me started on the fact that xinerama doesn't support 3D on all monitors.
Hotmail is great for a spam account.. let Microsoft pay the spam bills.
Privacy != Security, they're two different concepts, though they do have some inter-relation. Like when Privacy friends Security and Secrecy gets mad.
None that i'm aware of. Same with most VOIP services. Skype has encryption, but they also tap peoples calls at the drop of a supeona.. Which is not a good thing even if you're not doing anything wrong (there are lots of people in jails and prisons for things they didn't do based on evidence which "seems to fit")
Indeed. I bet there is a very large percentage of these "misconfigured" SSL certs that are in the list for this very reason. Just because you can get to an IP by a given domain name doesn't mean that's the domain it's intended to use SSL with.
Also, think about all the millions of firewalls and routers out there with enabled WAN access and a bogus ssl cert just to make it work. Think of all the development servers, think of all the self-signed certs (which whould show up as invalid to the researchers because they're not configured to accept the self-signed cert).
I would highly doubt any mroe than 20% of those "misconfigured" servers are actually misconfigured ssl certs for real sites.
He wrote the bios of the TRS-80 Model 100. That's the last software I heard that he wrote.
While he may own a large amount of stock, possibly more than anyone else (too lazy to look it up right now), he isn't a majority shareholder. Far from it. Yes, he has a large voice if he wants to, but it just a voice, not a authority.
Then you must be freakishly short.
Consider the distance of the entire arm length is nearly 3 feet for most people. Holding the device out at arms length down, you would be holding the device at about 2.5' and just below the groin. Moving up 1 foot is the lower chest, or about 18".
I just measured, and from the top of my shoulders to my navel is 22", add another 3 or 4 to get to eye level when looking down, that's more than 2 feet.