$450? I somehow doubt this is a particularly excellent piece of hardware. I mean, even accounting for the "M$ tax" as it were (which is negligible when applied in bulk OEM licenses anyway) and considering that it's difficult to find a decent laptop for under $800... well, I think this is kinda fishy.
a vertical monopoly usually benefits the consumer, while a horizontal monopoly does not
I disagree. There are no good monopolies, period.
If Apple applies pressure to a retailer, then they could just dump their Apple stock and start selling generic Windows PCs (and find out what competition really means). If MS tried the same thing, then that company would go out of buisness and have no valid survival strategy.
C'mon, you're making this too easy. Your analogy does not work for the simple reason that the Apple vendor is into selling Apple computers, not PCs. Much as I can't claim that the company pressured by Microsoft can just go to Unix and survive there. Neither of them have an easy choice.
Now, I don't particularly care that Microsoft has a monopoly because I buy, use and enjoy their products (and I profit from them!). You may be in the same boat because you're a Mac user that buys and loves Apple products. And that's fine. But for the little guy with the company being bullied out of business, this is not fair - at all.
Microsoft sucks!
Well now you just had to go and do that, didn't you? =)
Well now, I'm so flatered that you went and looked at my lists of friends and then read my journal. That's quite the piece of detective work, especially from a useless - er, faceless - anonymous turdomanic piece of adulterated protoplasm.
But the topic is not interesting. How many submitted stories for the Developers section -for example- do you think they turn down every day? That stuff is interesting, even if it's about embedding Linux in a toaster.
The story about SCO today has fewer posts than the inane one about the F# language. Is that "meaningful discussion"? I think not.
I loved reading the responses to this story. It doesn't get any more apologetic than this. Yet if this was Microsoft strong arming someone - or even the mere impression of them doing so - this would have been plastered all over the front page (instead of conveniently hiding in this section) and would have thousands of "insightful" posts explaining -yet again- why "M$" sucks and why Bill Gates is the Great Satan. We'd get the usual treatises on monopoly law, quotes by open source developers who've had to resort to eating garbage to survive due to Microsoft's unfair business practices, "All Hail Linux" posts, etc, etc, and ad nauseam.
This Slashdot double standard towards Apple is just mind boggling.
A few years ago a friend of mine who was into the survivalist thing asked me if I knew how to make steel files. Apparently making these things is a measure of the advancement of a civilization.
Dunno if that's true, but it does seem to make sense. I just remembered it when I saw this article.
Hahah. I hate to break it to you, but Microsoft-oriented sysadmins don't have a monopoly on stupidity. I've met Unix/Linux/BSD admins with as much IQ as your average snail.
Re:Reviewer responds to some common questions
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you are right, and I should have included this in the review.
That should've been the first line in the review, IMO.
Everything I posted in my review is honest
I don't doubt that, Matt. I'm not so much questioning your review per se as the lack of disclosure. It takes just a few seconds to Google anyone back 6 or 7 years.
Now, since you know I worked for Desaware, who are you?
That... is better left unsaid. Let's just say we've ran into each other somewhere else (virtually I mean - we've never met) a few times and had some interesting conversations about VB and Desaware and some other topics. FWIW, my dislike of Dan Appleman's marketing techniques is a matter of public record (under my real name, of course), but I didn't hold that over your head then, and I don't today. I thought your review was well done, just that little thing about the disclosure bothered me.
Please don't send me email - I probably won't reply anyway. Let's just leave it at that.
Suspect chemical attack, he types into a Microsoft Chat session running on the tactical Internet, the military's battlefield communications system. Multiple dead sheep by side of road. Pls advise.
A1 sauce and your tank's exhaust. pls send wingz the commander replies.
Re:Some clarifications
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The eBook is not anti-Microsoft or anti-.NET
Then perhaps you shouldn't have named it 'Hijacking.NET', eh? What's wrong with '.NET Internals' or something that didn't smack of evil unauthorized and insecure hacking?
Re:Reviewer responds to some common questions
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
So Matt (if you indeed are the reviewer), perhaps you should have disclosed the fact that you used to work for Desaware? That would have been real nice.
the rest of the Desaware team on the help file on the CD-ROM: Stjepan Pejic, Roan Bear, Marian Kicklighter, Karyn Duncan, Josh Peck, Levy Ring, Edo Mor, Michael Dickman, and Matt Solnit-thank you all for your help
And in case you're wondering, I know you worked for Desaware in the 90s, but I had to come up with some sort of proof, ergo the Google cache link.
I'm sorry (not really), but this smells of blatant advertisement, which fortunately for Dan is coupled by Slashbork's glee at posting anything that smells remotely like anti-Microsoft drivel.
The average book review here gets between 100 to 200 comments. Extrapolate that to page views and ad impressions. This one's up to 300+ and counting.
You need to buy a book that explains OO concepts. Creating classes with private members is not a security or a privacy decision.
Flamebait alert
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 4, Informative
OK, so let's review this "review":
Appleman's claim to fame are his efforts to bring advanced techniques to Visual Basic developers.
His approach was basically this: OK, this is how you dereference a pointer in VB. Get it? But wait - that's unsafe!. So click on this link to buy my SuperDuper Pointer Dereferencing Library for VB, priced to go at $99.
Appleman's "samples" were always flawed and biased, designed specifically to sell his ActiveX libraries and controls. He lost all credibility right after he published an essay on how to do multithreading from VB5, an essay that was also flawed in its premises and was also designed to sell his multithreading library. This "essay" was immediately slammed by the very people who wrote VB, including folks like Matt Curland.
So now this guy (who used to work for Desaware - surprised?) does a "review" of Appleman's essay on how to "hijack".NET.
What Mr. Dan "The Wiz" Appleman is doing here is nothing more insecure than calling class members directly using a vtable in a C++ application. Member visibility in C# (and in any other language) is a OO feature, not a security one. I'm not going into a discussion of.NET app domain security - I'm sure anyone who is interested can head on over to MSDN and look by themselves. Suffice it to say that where it matters, you can't do this. And quite a few other things.
This "evil technique" can also be applied to C++ and it can also be applied to Java. Wow!
The only reason Slashdot posted this article is to reinforce the perception that.NET sucks and is "insecure".
Witness the numerous clueless post on how "oh, I'm not surprised.NET is insecure" and "M$ is teh sux" and a few insightful ones debunking the very premise of this flamebait "story". A good number of "Hah! Java doesn't allow that" posts were duly bitchslapped below. But that doesn't matter in the end, because the premise itself is flawed. "Oh, look, I can access private members, I'm so 1337". I expected nothing more from Appleman, and I expected nothing more from the Slashdot "editors", who'll post anything that remotely looks like a problem with a Microsoft product. XML in Office anyone?
Coming soon - a story entitled "m$.nyet 'sploid", by "h^xx0r". Read more (40 characters in body).
Slashdot Mirror
$450? I somehow doubt this is a particularly excellent piece of hardware. I mean, even accounting for the "M$ tax" as it were (which is negligible when applied in bulk OEM licenses anyway) and considering that it's difficult to find a decent laptop for under $800... well, I think this is kinda fishy.
Oh fear. I'm so fucking scared.
Oh and "turdomanic"
You like that, yes?
Too bad you can't muster the balls to log in. That'd be fun!. Oh well. At least I've got your attention, "cunt". Hehe.
I disagree. There are no good monopolies, period.
If Apple applies pressure to a retailer, then they could just dump their Apple stock and start selling generic Windows PCs (and find out what competition really means). If MS tried the same thing, then that company would go out of buisness and have no valid survival strategy.
C'mon, you're making this too easy. Your analogy does not work for the simple reason that the Apple vendor is into selling Apple computers, not PCs. Much as I can't claim that the company pressured by Microsoft can just go to Unix and survive there. Neither of them have an easy choice.
Now, I don't particularly care that Microsoft has a monopoly because I buy, use and enjoy their products (and I profit from them!). You may be in the same boat because you're a Mac user that buys and loves Apple products. And that's fine. But for the little guy with the company being bullied out of business, this is not fair - at all.
Microsoft sucks!
Well now you just had to go and do that, didn't you? =)
Don't whine about my whining. It makes you look even more st00pid.
For a moment there I read KarmaBungieFriday and got all excited. Oh well.
"Cunt"? Bwahahahaha!
Thanks everyone!
But the topic is not interesting. How many submitted stories for the Developers section -for example- do you think they turn down every day? That stuff is interesting, even if it's about embedding Linux in a toaster.
The story about SCO today has fewer posts than the inane one about the F# language. Is that "meaningful discussion"? I think not.
Well, I know. But it's unfair.
I protest. Why was my post modded down to -1? I was merely expressing my opinion that this article is really not very interesting, that's all. Jeez.
Not really.
This Slashdot double standard towards Apple is just mind boggling.
Perhaps he meant that not even this extreme measure would prevent him from groping his classmates during band practice.
It seems in character.
Yeah, but you're not supposed to see that =)
Dunno if that's true, but it does seem to make sense. I just remembered it when I saw this article.
Here's another one. Mod away!
Hahah. I hate to break it to you, but Microsoft-oriented sysadmins don't have a monopoly on stupidity. I've met Unix/Linux/BSD admins with as much IQ as your average snail.
My, my. Some GNU hippie went through this thread with drool on his mouth and a few mod points to spare. Sad.
No, but neither do buffalo.
That should've been the first line in the review, IMO.
Everything I posted in my review is honest
I don't doubt that, Matt. I'm not so much questioning your review per se as the lack of disclosure. It takes just a few seconds to Google anyone back 6 or 7 years.
Now, since you know I worked for Desaware, who are you?
That... is better left unsaid. Let's just say we've ran into each other somewhere else (virtually I mean - we've never met) a few times and had some interesting conversations about VB and Desaware and some other topics. FWIW, my dislike of Dan Appleman's marketing techniques is a matter of public record (under my real name, of course), but I didn't hold that over your head then, and I don't today. I thought your review was well done, just that little thing about the disclosure bothered me.
Please don't send me email - I probably won't reply anyway. Let's just leave it at that.
A1 sauce and your tank's exhaust. pls send wingz the commander replies.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have named it 'Hijacking .NET', eh? What's wrong with '.NET Internals' or something that didn't smack of evil unauthorized and insecure hacking?
And in case you're wondering, I know you worked for Desaware in the 90s, but I had to come up with some sort of proof, ergo the Google cache link.
I'm sorry (not really), but this smells of blatant advertisement, which fortunately for Dan is coupled by Slashbork's glee at posting anything that smells remotely like anti-Microsoft drivel.
The average book review here gets between 100 to 200 comments. Extrapolate that to page views and ad impressions. This one's up to 300+ and counting.
You need to buy a book that explains OO concepts. Creating classes with private members is not a security or a privacy decision.
- Appleman's claim to fame are his efforts to bring advanced techniques to Visual Basic developers.
- His approach was basically this: OK, this is how you dereference a pointer in VB. Get it? But wait - that's unsafe!. So click on this link to buy my SuperDuper Pointer Dereferencing Library for VB, priced to go at $99.
- Appleman's "samples" were always flawed and biased, designed specifically to sell his ActiveX libraries and controls. He lost all credibility right after he published an essay on how to do multithreading from VB5, an essay that was also flawed in its premises and was also designed to sell his multithreading library. This "essay" was immediately slammed by the very people who wrote VB, including folks like Matt Curland.
- So now this guy (who used to work for Desaware - surprised?) does a "review" of Appleman's essay on how to "hijack"
.NET.
- What Mr. Dan "The Wiz" Appleman is doing here is nothing more insecure than calling class members directly using a vtable in a C++ application. Member visibility in C# (and in any other language) is a OO feature, not a security one. I'm not going into a discussion of
.NET app domain security - I'm sure anyone who is interested can head on over to MSDN and look by themselves. Suffice it to say that where it matters, you can't do this. And quite a few other things.
- This "evil technique" can also be applied to C++ and it can also be applied to Java. Wow!
- The only reason Slashdot posted this article is to reinforce the perception that
.NET sucks and is "insecure".
Witness the numerous clueless post on how "oh, I'm not surprisedComing soon - a story entitled "m$ .nyet 'sploid", by "h^xx0r". Read more (40 characters in body).