Quicktime for Windows is not actually windows software.
It is Quicktime for the Mac recompiled for x86 and running on top of a translation layer that has just enough of the Mac "toolbox" (Cocoa?) API to let quicktime run.
It does not integrate or take advantage of any windows services, like DirectShow, WinMM, etc. It doesn't even use standard windows message passing.
So in reality Apple wrote a translation layer for windows (or paid someone else to do it), and just runs the mac version of quicktime on top of that layer.
There is a reason no one uses Quicktime content on Windows - Apple makes it a major pain to do so.
Quicktime on Windows is nothing more than Quicktime for the Mac recompiled for x86 and running on top of a Mac Toolbox translation layer (just enough of the toolbox API to make QT run.)
It does not interact with the dotnet runtime. It does not provide any COM objects nor is it subject to COM automation. It does not provide standard Win32-style API calls. It does not use standard Win32 message passing. It does not integrate with WinMM or Directshow.
It is, in a word, a kludge. You must write separate nonstandard event handling routines and use lots of crazy Mac-style toolbox APIs to interact with Quicktime.
In contrast, I can call WinMM or setup a DirectShow filtergraph and automatically be able to play any codec installed on the system. I can drag & drop the Windows Media control into my app. It is all simple, easy, and from the point of view of a windows developer it is standard and behaves like other apps and the system itself.
I understand why Apple did this - it means less work for them. They only wrote the translation layer once and use the same code on both. That also makes keeping them compatible a no-brainer. But it also means you won't see much love for Quicktime on Windows and for good reason.
Perhaps, but I think Microsoft got it right on this one. Most of your file cache is marked as both free memory and cache. Should an application request a lot of memory, the system can instantly select any part of the read-only cache and overwrite those pages as used memory now. It also marks pages available to be freed, but doesn't actually clear or free them so if it turns out that the cache manager mispredicted and that stuff really was needed, as long as the pages weren't touched by any other program the OS can just move them back into the cache pool.
Of course all of this has nothing to do with memory management models. iTunes uses lots of memory because it uses lots of non-standard UI components and widgets, meaning it has to load lots of extra graphics and code to do what most normal programs just let the OS do (with its one copy in memory for all apps.)
I like iTunes for windows reasonably well, but they'd get a lot more points from me if it adhered to the Theme manager in XP and the normal Windows UI design. This business of "wow people will see how cool iTunes looks and want to buy a mac!" is crap. They will only see how iTunes works totally differently than all other windows programs and be annoyed by it.
(For example, why does Mozilla and iTunes put the Prefs menu under Edit? What the hell does changing options have to do with copy/paste and text editing operations? In Windows, that goes under the Tools menu. They are little things, but they make a big difference.)
Also, why doesn't Apple expose Quicktime and iTunes to the COM or managed model? Why can't I write plugins for iTunes or a program that uses Quicktime on windows right from any COM component host or dotnet language? Part of Winamp's success has been in skin and plugin support.
The Mac OS and the QuickTime APIs have no concept of a "Multiple Document Interface"
And MDI has nothing to do with maximizing or not maximizing a window; it relates to whether a window can have child windows contained totally within the parent window as a subspace. Asshat.
Actually if you do it right, you won't have these problems. First and foremost, if you want a fast and stable Windows network, ditch ALL of your Win9x/ME clients. Period. Microsoft should have never compromised and let people log on to the domain from those machines. They don't use DNS for name resolution, they can't be members of the domain and thus can't be controled by policy. They are just a burden and a major one at that.
If you have all Win2000/WinXP clients, eliminate WINS. Then use Group Policy to push settings to all your members and turn off the "Computer Browser" service. This means none of the machines out there will try to be master browsers or force elections or do any of that other bandwidth wasting crap.
Leave "Computer Browser" turned on for your domain controllers. They will automatically scavenge and deal with records for all broad-cast name resolution requirements.
But the big win is that Win2K/XP will go to DNS as their first choice for name resolution, and if you have Dynamic DNS turned on and running on your DCs, this means DNS should be fairly well up to date and will respond to requests quickly. (You can set the scavenge time to be whatever you like. The tradeoff is traffic to check and see if machines are still alive.)
Now frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about Samba. Counting in overhead, I can transfer files as fast as my network wire can deliver them. But then again I use real servers with multiple RAID-5 SCSI arrays, multiple processors, 2 gigs of ram, etc unlike the POS box in that article.
Just like all "anti-piracy" measures in music, movies, and software it will NOT affect the real pirates in any way.
Just load up the video into your favorite editor, snip snip, and the offending frames are gone!
You could even get a little more clever and just fill over the spots with pixels to make them impossible to read.
And if you want to be supremely clever, you just let the computer average over the frames to erase it away, and/or use the clone and heal brushes in photoshop to make it as if the spots had never existed.
To the people whining and moaning about money, shut up.
Verisign gets $6 per year PER DOMAIN from all of its registrars. That means godaddy, tucows, register.com, and all the others pay Verisign $6 for every single domain registered in the.com and.net spaces. That is a LOT of cash and more than enough to cover the bandwidth and server bills.
This is also why you won't see domain name registering services ever drop below $6-10. They must pay the $6 fee, and also have enough left over to make a profit.
Yes, there is a way. You set an option to require patches to install if the computer missed the normal nightly patch time. Typically, set the options to require install within 1 minute of logon.
The user will get a dialog informing them that they are going to be patched.
I highly suggest that ANYONE dealing with Microsoft products go setup SUS right now. (Software Update Services). It's a server that runs on the local network and pushes updates out to all Win2K/XP clients. Microsoft has not been idle and has actively been releasing new tools (Urlscan, Baseline Security Analyzer, SUS, etc)
1. Install SUS on one of your servers. Let it sync its updates, then log in and approve whatever updates you want to go out. Also set it up to automatically grab new updates from Microsoft every night.
2. In Active Directory, create a new group policy applied to the container that has all of your machines in it, or even to the entire enterprise. In this policy, add the Sus client MSI file to the software push (assign it).
3. Download the SUS ADM file, and import it in the group policy editor snapin. You will now see a new item under System Components - Windows Update. Select it, and set your options.... what server to go to, whether to install without user intervention (like every night at 3:00 am), and so on.
There are (free) log analyzers that will scan the log files and stuff the data into a SQL database, then produce a report from it detailing what machines installed what patches, what patches failed, and so on.
There really is no excuse. Once you do this, the ONLY thing you need to do is login to SusAdmin and approve updates from time to time (or use the hack to make it approve updates automatically every time they arrive.) This makes it a painless, easy, and foolproof process to patch all the Win2K/XP machines on your network.
Let me help clue some people in here. One of the wonderful properties of water (which helps to make earth more conductive to life I might add) is that it becomes less dense and expands when it freezes. It is one of the few natural materials that does so. Most things become more dense. (Hence, lakes don't freeze solid killing all the fish. The ice forms an insulating layer at the top because it is less dense than water and floats.)
As a result, the complete melting of the polar ice cap would result in, quite possibly, a slight reduction in sea levels, as the resultant water from the melting will take up less space than the ice did. However, since ice floats, some of it was above the waterline so it may end up a wash.
If the antartic melted, that would be very bad. You see, there is a land mass there. With ice frozen on top of it. If that ice melts, that is new water added to the ocean as a whole, NOT water replacing ice that was already in the ocean. A totally different animal.
As for all this? we knew that we were coming out of the last mini-iceage already. It doesn't shock me in the least to see what the ice is still receeding on the whole. Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages. As much as I delore some of the insane policies of the eastern ultra-liberal nutjobs, I have no desire to see New York covered in a glacial blanket.
That isn't strictly true - guns bought by individuals are the same as any other hobby.
By that logic, one might conclude that every computer purchased is theft from those who hunger. Or perhaps every dollar spent on social programs is one less dollar spent on space research or national defense!
In other words, silly nonsense. I might add that most social problems are only hurt by greater spending. We don't need more $$$ in worthless programs... we need more PEOPLE who can care for other PEOPLE and form a lasting relationship and help them. If you look at the "social" programs that work, they are the programs where volunteers or workers take the time to form a relationship with those they help and simply love and care for them.
Of course such an approach isn't suitable to mass-produced, government-managed, lawsuit-proof methodologies, and such isn't encouraged nearly as often as it might be.
Eisenhower did warn us about the military-industrial complex though, and I agree with some of his ideas there. Just don't push the cutesy little saying too far as a philosophy or it falls apart, as those funny little sayings always do.
I beg your pardon, but "The old argument that no one likes reading on a computer has pretty much eroded" is a load of nonsense.
I have Harry Potter in eBook form. But I also have it as hardback. Why? because I enjoy reading books in physical form so much more.
I originally got into the Harry Potter series by renting the first movie. I then read the first four books on my PocketPC in eBook format, but they were pirated ONLY because it wasn't available as an eBook legally. I have now started purchasing the hardbacks because reading on the PocketPC isn't nearly as nice as using a physical book.
I think that Books are one area that you will especially find piracy has little impact. The majority of the time, those who pirate a book digitally only do so because a) they can't buy the eBook legally, or b) they wouldn't have bought the book in the first place - the choices were don't have it or pirate it.
I'm going to spell this out because you people seem to have grown stupid as of late, and I am tired of repeating myself.
INTERFACES ARE PUBLIC CONTRACTS. You see, yes, Microsoft can change things under the hood. SO THE FUCK WHAT? The public interfaces still exist and still act the same way; those interfaces are a contract with all of the thousands of existing projects out there. If Microsoft makes breaking changes, the old versions of the runtime will still run side-by-side, and that is by design. And mono can simply copy the INTERFACE changes.
Why don't you go out and learn what programming by contract is before you spout your ignorant mouth off?
(Yeah I know this is a bit flame-ish, but my previous posts on the subject seem to have been ignored. It is important to remember that Microsoft cannot "break" dotnet in a way that hurts mono without hurting themselves and all their developers).
Part of the problem is that the author appears unable to massage google to find the results he wants.
For example, when I search for a specific model of DVD player, I may search for "dvd A7049-34 review" - I was looking for a review so I put it in my search. Even better, add -shop to the end of my search. Now pages with the word shop in them will get filtered out.
Want to find info on apple farms? search for 'apple -"apple computer" -macintosh' and you'll eliminate a lot of mac webpages from the search.
Sometimes, typing a question into google will get you where you want... "how does thing X work?" More often than not you'll find the answer on the first page, because people post to newsgroups, web forums, and the like with questions and you are (usually) not the first person to ask that question.
The key here is to remember that you can tell Google what you want to find AND what you DON'T want to find (just put a minus in front of the word.)
Torrentse.cx died because the lawyers CC'd the co-loc provider and THEY pulled the plug, before torrentse even had a chance to respond. In other words, presumption of guilt.
Doesn't shock me though - they were getting such a cheap rate that it looked like one of those cut-throat co-loc operations anyway and they aren't much into protection of customers.
Just another bit of the mentality of the DMCA: assume guilt, ask questions later.
Yes, what many people don't realize is that when a hard drive falls off a desk and hits the ground it can be 50-100Gs worth of force for a fraction of a second. Now you know why they rate them for 200Gs.
During a car crash, or something like that the G-forces are, momentarily, very high. But it doesn't last long enough to do any real damage in most cases.
I think we should note that VS.NET and the CLR have only been released since Feb 2002, although betas were available for two years before that.
Of course development of Windows Server 2003 started right after W2K server was released.
I think the article in question was going on about web services, in which case 2001 ought to be the correct timeframe.
So this huge dubious.net umbrella actually catches a number of things, which each have differing timetables. They also each have different levels of success or failure. (VS.NET/CLR = great success, server 2003 = too early to tell, web services = total flop)
In reality, there were a whole bunch of things that got swept into the umbrella of.Net, and none of them were relayed.
The next generation of Windows Server (2003) dropped the dotnet name. But by all accounts, IIS 6 is faster and more secure, not to mention it has some awesome new features regarding webfarms, app domains, et al. [It is a total ground-up rewrite]. The OS itself has new tools focused on security out of the box. From what I have seen, I can't wait to get all my 2K servers upgraded so I suppose you can call the "server" side of.net a success, even though it dropped the name. Plus Exchange 2k3 was just released and SQL Server 2k3 is just around the corner, so that part isn't even complete.
The major win has been VS.NET and the runtime. Developer productivity has never been higher on the Windows platform. But all indications are that VS and the CLR may drop the.net name in a future revision, but who knows.
What has been a failure is the whole web-services angle. Hailstorm and the other planned services have not panned out quite as Microsoft might have hoped, but this isn't unexpected.
Simple Answer
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think Congress should mandate that any product which contains an RFID tag must be clearly labelled as such, and the store must provide you the option of disabling the tag before leaving the store (perhaps a certain device you walk through or something?)
Products that have RFID tags only in the packaging could be exempt, since those tags don't stick with the product.
This argument is a myth, and has been used by Microsofties to try and downplay the vastly superior security of both *BSD and GNU/Linux. Mac OS X is a FreeBSD derivative in many respects, and vastly better designed from the ground up than Microsoft windows, for whom things like networking and security were afterthoughts cobbled together in an ad-hoc frenzy of featuritis and catch-up.
ROFL! I think you will find that it is Windows that has DACLs, and you will also find that networking was a core component of NT 3.5; perhaps you are still stuck in the days of Windows 95?
Such an ad-hoc approach to design will never yield acceptable security, as Microsoft's shoddy products have demonstrated so dramatically in recent years, time and time again...and once again today, with this irritating worm.
Actually this worm requires that open an unknown attatched ZIP file from an email message, extract the executable, then run it. How, exactly, is that Microsoft's fault?
[removed your crap about numbers]
Actually, most people don't check their email on their servers, so your entire argument is pointless. Email viruses are targetted at the largest base of email clients, which happens to be Windows email clients.
It isn't about numbers. It is about design, and everyone in the industry, with the exception of Microsoft, has taken security seriously and designed their systems appropriately.
Ha! Squeaked the itty bitty mouse.
First of all, Microsoft has done a lot to make security easier to configure on Windows 2000. Some of us were reading the best practices documents and implementing proper security long before that, but others were not so Microsoft developed tools (URLScan, Baseline Security Analyser, etc).
Microsoft also expended a lot of effort making sure that the next version, server 2003, was secure out of the box, and when additional services are installed that they do so in a maximally secured state. The various wizards do a good job of alerting the admin to possible problems.
The last step is the security model of the dotNET runtime. Essentially, it is an entirely new paradigm that causes code to assume additional security restrictions based on administratively set policies and the source of the executable. If an executable originally came from an email, the runtime can know that and handle security in an appropriate way. But these things take time, and you always have the native code hole. I don't see any way around that.
P.S. You can mark things executable or not in Windows. It is the "traverse folder / execute file" right. You see, since Windows supports DACLs on Folders and Files, Registry keys, and indeed... nearly any object in the system, it is far more configurable as a file or application server than Linux or OS X. (I, for one, run my services like IIS and such in a separate security account from SYSTEM [root] so that breeches can't bring down the system. That is another security 'best practice')
For example, if you save all downloaded files from email or the web to C:\temp then you can right-click temp and go to the security tab. Click Advanced. Click Add. Select "Everyone". Now on the permissions entry tab, click "Traverse Folder / Execute File" in the DENY column. Then select "apply onto" as "Files Only". OK your way out of all that.
Now no one can execute files in c:\temp or its subfolders, since the entry will be inherited by subfolders by default.
You can go so far as to set that up on your entire drive, but I would strongly suggest disabling inherited permissions (select COPY when prompted) on Program Files and the Windows (or WINNT) folder. Otherwise, you may find yourself screwed.
First, XP autorestarts on a blue screen. AKA it resets immediately. Better yet, go into the event log and you will see the equivalent to what a bluescreen will tell you in there about 'system rebooted due to a bugcheck' or some such.
Secondly, perhaps some of your colleagues have hardware problems with Windows 2000 because they are using esoteric hardware with poorly written drivers, or perhaps even no drivers for win2k and they are using nt4 drivers (which are poorly written and depend on specifically having nt4 present).
Windows 2000 is in every measurable way better than NT4, technological luddites notwithstanding. Some people just bitch and whine about anything new because they don't know any better.
I don't know where you people are getting all this 'XP is crap' stuff from. It is the same kernel (mostly) as Windows 2000.
I'll tell you this, we have nearly completed a rollout of XP to ALL of our client workstations. Our helpdesk calls have dropped significantly because of that. The machines are real workhorses.
Now occasionally, we have found certain machines to be flaky but simple driver upgrades solved the problem. Honestly, bad hardware or bad drivers are almost the only way to bring down a 2K or XP machine. Stick to all WHQL-certified drivers if you can.
But I'm sure Win2K, Linux, et al NEVER EVER have driver problems, oh no...
If you've been waiting this long for a stable NT4 system you should have upgraded to Win2K a long time ago. Our DCs and Exchange servers run continuously unless we take them down for a patch or hardware upgrade.
The problem with Microsoft stuff has always been that it is easy to use, meaning your average Joe Know-nothing things he's done a bang-up job setting things up when in reality the entire network infrastructure is one big house of cards ready to collapse at the slightest security breech.
That's where I think Microsoft has done a better job with Windows 2003. Time will tell of course, but so far it seems to do a much better job of automatically putting everything into the most secure state possible. No extra services are installed by default, and when you do install some (like IIS), they are locked down. You must go in and specifically enable the features you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Quicktime for Windows is not actually windows software.
It is Quicktime for the Mac recompiled for x86 and running on top of a translation layer that has just enough of the Mac "toolbox" (Cocoa?) API to let quicktime run.
It does not integrate or take advantage of any windows services, like DirectShow, WinMM, etc. It doesn't even use standard windows message passing.
So in reality Apple wrote a translation layer for windows (or paid someone else to do it), and just runs the mac version of quicktime on top of that layer.
There is a reason no one uses Quicktime content on Windows - Apple makes it a major pain to do so.
Quicktime on Windows is nothing more than Quicktime for the Mac recompiled for x86 and running on top of a Mac Toolbox translation layer (just enough of the toolbox API to make QT run.)
It does not interact with the dotnet runtime.
It does not provide any COM objects nor is it subject to COM automation.
It does not provide standard Win32-style API calls.
It does not use standard Win32 message passing.
It does not integrate with WinMM or Directshow.
It is, in a word, a kludge. You must write separate nonstandard event handling routines and use lots of crazy Mac-style toolbox APIs to interact with Quicktime.
In contrast, I can call WinMM or setup a DirectShow filtergraph and automatically be able to play any codec installed on the system. I can drag & drop the Windows Media control into my app. It is all simple, easy, and from the point of view of a windows developer it is standard and behaves like other apps and the system itself.
I understand why Apple did this - it means less work for them. They only wrote the translation layer once and use the same code on both. That also makes keeping them compatible a no-brainer. But it also means you won't see much love for Quicktime on Windows and for good reason.
Perhaps, but I think Microsoft got it right on this one. Most of your file cache is marked as both free memory and cache. Should an application request a lot of memory, the system can instantly select any part of the read-only cache and overwrite those pages as used memory now. It also marks pages available to be freed, but doesn't actually clear or free them so if it turns out that the cache manager mispredicted and that stuff really was needed, as long as the pages weren't touched by any other program the OS can just move them back into the cache pool.
Of course all of this has nothing to do with memory management models. iTunes uses lots of memory because it uses lots of non-standard UI components and widgets, meaning it has to load lots of extra graphics and code to do what most normal programs just let the OS do (with its one copy in memory for all apps.)
I like iTunes for windows reasonably well, but they'd get a lot more points from me if it adhered to the Theme manager in XP and the normal Windows UI design. This business of "wow people will see how cool iTunes looks and want to buy a mac!" is crap. They will only see how iTunes works totally differently than all other windows programs and be annoyed by it.
(For example, why does Mozilla and iTunes put the Prefs menu under Edit? What the hell does changing options have to do with copy/paste and text editing operations? In Windows, that goes under the Tools menu. They are little things, but they make a big difference.)
Also, why doesn't Apple expose Quicktime and iTunes to the COM or managed model? Why can't I write plugins for iTunes or a program that uses Quicktime on windows right from any COM component host or dotnet language? Part of Winamp's success has been in skin and plugin support.
The Mac OS and the QuickTime APIs have no concept of a "Multiple Document Interface"
And MDI has nothing to do with maximizing or not maximizing a window; it relates to whether a window can have child windows contained totally within the parent window as a subspace. Asshat.
Actually if you do it right, you won't have these problems. First and foremost, if you want a fast and stable Windows network, ditch ALL of your Win9x/ME clients. Period. Microsoft should have never compromised and let people log on to the domain from those machines. They don't use DNS for name resolution, they can't be members of the domain and thus can't be controled by policy. They are just a burden and a major one at that.
If you have all Win2000/WinXP clients, eliminate WINS. Then use Group Policy to push settings to all your members and turn off the "Computer Browser" service. This means none of the machines out there will try to be master browsers or force elections or do any of that other bandwidth wasting crap.
Leave "Computer Browser" turned on for your domain controllers. They will automatically scavenge and deal with records for all broad-cast name resolution requirements.
But the big win is that Win2K/XP will go to DNS as their first choice for name resolution, and if you have Dynamic DNS turned on and running on your DCs, this means DNS should be fairly well up to date and will respond to requests quickly. (You can set the scavenge time to be whatever you like. The tradeoff is traffic to check and see if machines are still alive.)
Now frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about Samba. Counting in overhead, I can transfer files as fast as my network wire can deliver them. But then again I use real servers with multiple RAID-5 SCSI arrays, multiple processors, 2 gigs of ram, etc unlike the POS box in that article.
Just like all "anti-piracy" measures in music, movies, and software it will NOT affect the real pirates in any way.
Just load up the video into your favorite editor, snip snip, and the offending frames are gone!
You could even get a little more clever and just fill over the spots with pixels to make them impossible to read.
And if you want to be supremely clever, you just let the computer average over the frames to erase it away, and/or use the clone and heal brushes in photoshop to make it as if the spots had never existed.
To the people whining and moaning about money, shut up.
.com and .net spaces. That is a LOT of cash and more than enough to cover the bandwidth and server bills.
Verisign gets $6 per year PER DOMAIN from all of its registrars. That means godaddy, tucows, register.com, and all the others pay Verisign $6 for every single domain registered in the
This is also why you won't see domain name registering services ever drop below $6-10. They must pay the $6 fee, and also have enough left over to make a profit.
Yes, there is a way. You set an option to require patches to install if the computer missed the normal nightly patch time. Typically, set the options to require install within 1 minute of logon.
The user will get a dialog informing them that they are going to be patched.
I highly suggest that ANYONE dealing with Microsoft products go setup SUS right now. (Software Update Services). It's a server that runs on the local network and pushes updates out to all Win2K/XP clients. Microsoft has not been idle and has actively been releasing new tools (Urlscan, Baseline Security Analyzer, SUS, etc)
1. Install SUS on one of your servers. Let it sync its updates, then log in and approve whatever updates you want to go out. Also set it up to automatically grab new updates from Microsoft every night.
2. In Active Directory, create a new group policy applied to the container that has all of your machines in it, or even to the entire enterprise. In this policy, add the Sus client MSI file to the software push (assign it).
3. Download the SUS ADM file, and import it in the group policy editor snapin. You will now see a new item under System Components - Windows Update. Select it, and set your options.... what server to go to, whether to install without user intervention (like every night at 3:00 am), and so on.
There are (free) log analyzers that will scan the log files and stuff the data into a SQL database, then produce a report from it detailing what machines installed what patches, what patches failed, and so on.
There really is no excuse. Once you do this, the ONLY thing you need to do is login to SusAdmin and approve updates from time to time (or use the hack to make it approve updates automatically every time they arrive.) This makes it a painless, easy, and foolproof process to patch all the Win2K/XP machines on your network.
Let me help clue some people in here. One of the wonderful properties of water (which helps to make earth more conductive to life I might add) is that it becomes less dense and expands when it freezes. It is one of the few natural materials that does so. Most things become more dense. (Hence, lakes don't freeze solid killing all the fish. The ice forms an insulating layer at the top because it is less dense than water and floats.)
As a result, the complete melting of the polar ice cap would result in, quite possibly, a slight reduction in sea levels, as the resultant water from the melting will take up less space than the ice did. However, since ice floats, some of it was above the waterline so it may end up a wash.
If the antartic melted, that would be very bad. You see, there is a land mass there. With ice frozen on top of it. If that ice melts, that is new water added to the ocean as a whole, NOT water replacing ice that was already in the ocean. A totally different animal.
As for all this? we knew that we were coming out of the last mini-iceage already. It doesn't shock me in the least to see what the ice is still receeding on the whole. Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages. As much as I delore some of the insane policies of the eastern ultra-liberal nutjobs, I have no desire to see New York covered in a glacial blanket.
my server survived a slashdotting just fine - IIS 5.0 / win2k sp3, 512 ram, single IDE HDD, P3-800mhz, etc.
The problem was, as it is for most people who get slashdotted, I didn't have a big enough pipe. Nothing to be done about that. I can't afford an OC3.
That isn't strictly true - guns bought by individuals are the same as any other hobby.
By that logic, one might conclude that every computer purchased is theft from those who hunger. Or perhaps every dollar spent on social programs is one less dollar spent on space research or national defense!
In other words, silly nonsense. I might add that most social problems are only hurt by greater spending. We don't need more $$$ in worthless programs... we need more PEOPLE who can care for other PEOPLE and form a lasting relationship and help them. If you look at the "social" programs that work, they are the programs where volunteers or workers take the time to form a relationship with those they help and simply love and care for them.
Of course such an approach isn't suitable to mass-produced, government-managed, lawsuit-proof methodologies, and such isn't encouraged nearly as often as it might be.
Eisenhower did warn us about the military-industrial complex though, and I agree with some of his ideas there. Just don't push the cutesy little saying too far as a philosophy or it falls apart, as those funny little sayings always do.
I beg your pardon, but "The old argument that no one likes reading on a computer has pretty much eroded" is a load of nonsense.
I have Harry Potter in eBook form. But I also have it as hardback. Why? because I enjoy reading books in physical form so much more.
I originally got into the Harry Potter series by renting the first movie. I then read the first four books on my PocketPC in eBook format, but they were pirated ONLY because it wasn't available as an eBook legally. I have now started purchasing the hardbacks because reading on the PocketPC isn't nearly as nice as using a physical book.
I think that Books are one area that you will especially find piracy has little impact. The majority of the time, those who pirate a book digitally only do so because a) they can't buy the eBook legally, or b) they wouldn't have bought the book in the first place - the choices were don't have it or pirate it.
I'm going to spell this out because you people seem to have grown stupid as of late, and I am tired of repeating myself.
INTERFACES ARE PUBLIC CONTRACTS. You see, yes, Microsoft can change things under the hood. SO THE FUCK WHAT? The public interfaces still exist and still act the same way; those interfaces are a contract with all of the thousands of existing projects out there. If Microsoft makes breaking changes, the old versions of the runtime will still run side-by-side, and that is by design. And mono can simply copy the INTERFACE changes.
Why don't you go out and learn what programming by contract is before you spout your ignorant mouth off?
(Yeah I know this is a bit flame-ish, but my previous posts on the subject seem to have been ignored. It is important to remember that Microsoft cannot "break" dotnet in a way that hurts mono without hurting themselves and all their developers).
Part of the problem is that the author appears unable to massage google to find the results he wants.
For example, when I search for a specific model of DVD player, I may search for "dvd A7049-34 review" - I was looking for a review so I put it in my search. Even better, add -shop to the end of my search. Now pages with the word shop in them will get filtered out.
Want to find info on apple farms? search for 'apple -"apple computer" -macintosh' and you'll eliminate a lot of mac webpages from the search.
Sometimes, typing a question into google will get you where you want... "how does thing X work?" More often than not you'll find the answer on the first page, because people post to newsgroups, web forums, and the like with questions and you are (usually) not the first person to ask that question.
The key here is to remember that you can tell Google what you want to find AND what you DON'T want to find (just put a minus in front of the word.)
Funny enough, english and german come from the same language roots, though english is more of a mutt than german in certain respects.
Torrentse.cx died because the lawyers CC'd the co-loc provider and THEY pulled the plug, before torrentse even had a chance to respond. In other words, presumption of guilt.
Doesn't shock me though - they were getting such a cheap rate that it looked like one of those cut-throat co-loc operations anyway and they aren't much into protection of customers.
Just another bit of the mentality of the DMCA: assume guilt, ask questions later.
Yes, what many people don't realize is that when a hard drive falls off a desk and hits the ground it can be 50-100Gs worth of force for a fraction of a second. Now you know why they rate them for 200Gs.
During a car crash, or something like that the G-forces are, momentarily, very high. But it doesn't last long enough to do any real damage in most cases.
I think we should note that VS.NET and the CLR have only been released since Feb 2002, although betas were available for two years before that.
.net umbrella actually catches a number of things, which each have differing timetables. They also each have different levels of success or failure. (VS.NET/CLR = great success, server 2003 = too early to tell, web services = total flop)
Of course development of Windows Server 2003 started right after W2K server was released.
I think the article in question was going on about web services, in which case 2001 ought to be the correct timeframe.
So this huge dubious
In reality, there were a whole bunch of things that got swept into the umbrella of .Net, and none of them were relayed.
.net a success, even though it dropped the name. Plus Exchange 2k3 was just released and SQL Server 2k3 is just around the corner, so that part isn't even complete.
.net name in a future revision, but who knows.
The next generation of Windows Server (2003) dropped the dotnet name. But by all accounts, IIS 6 is faster and more secure, not to mention it has some awesome new features regarding webfarms, app domains, et al. [It is a total ground-up rewrite]. The OS itself has new tools focused on security out of the box. From what I have seen, I can't wait to get all my 2K servers upgraded so I suppose you can call the "server" side of
The major win has been VS.NET and the runtime. Developer productivity has never been higher on the Windows platform. But all indications are that VS and the CLR may drop the
What has been a failure is the whole web-services angle. Hailstorm and the other planned services have not panned out quite as Microsoft might have hoped, but this isn't unexpected.
I think Congress should mandate that any product which contains an RFID tag must be clearly labelled as such, and the store must provide you the option of disabling the tag before leaving the store (perhaps a certain device you walk through or something?)
Products that have RFID tags only in the packaging could be exempt, since those tags don't stick with the product.
Who the hell modded this troll up?
... nearly any object in the system, it is far more configurable as a file or application server than Linux or OS X. (I, for one, run my services like IIS and such in a separate security account from SYSTEM [root] so that breeches can't bring down the system. That is another security 'best practice')
This argument is a myth, and has been used by Microsofties to try and downplay the vastly superior security of both *BSD and GNU/Linux. Mac OS X is a FreeBSD derivative in many respects, and vastly better designed from the ground up than Microsoft windows, for whom things like networking and security were afterthoughts cobbled together in an ad-hoc frenzy of featuritis and catch-up.
ROFL! I think you will find that it is Windows that has DACLs, and you will also find that networking was a core component of NT 3.5; perhaps you are still stuck in the days of Windows 95?
Such an ad-hoc approach to design will never yield acceptable security, as Microsoft's shoddy products have demonstrated so dramatically in recent years, time and time again...and once again today, with this irritating worm.
Actually this worm requires that open an unknown attatched ZIP file from an email message, extract the executable, then run it. How, exactly, is that Microsoft's fault?
[removed your crap about numbers]
Actually, most people don't check their email on their servers, so your entire argument is pointless. Email viruses are targetted at the largest base of email clients, which happens to be Windows email clients.
It isn't about numbers. It is about design, and everyone in the industry, with the exception of Microsoft, has taken security seriously and designed their systems appropriately.
Ha! Squeaked the itty bitty mouse.
First of all, Microsoft has done a lot to make security easier to configure on Windows 2000. Some of us were reading the best practices documents and implementing proper security long before that, but others were not so Microsoft developed tools (URLScan, Baseline Security Analyser, etc).
Microsoft also expended a lot of effort making sure that the next version, server 2003, was secure out of the box, and when additional services are installed that they do so in a maximally secured state. The various wizards do a good job of alerting the admin to possible problems.
The last step is the security model of the dotNET runtime. Essentially, it is an entirely new paradigm that causes code to assume additional security restrictions based on administratively set policies and the source of the executable. If an executable originally came from an email, the runtime can know that and handle security in an appropriate way. But these things take time, and you always have the native code hole. I don't see any way around that.
P.S. You can mark things executable or not in Windows. It is the "traverse folder / execute file" right. You see, since Windows supports DACLs on Folders and Files, Registry keys, and indeed
For example, if you save all downloaded files from email or the web to C:\temp then you can right-click temp and go to the security tab. Click Advanced. Click Add. Select "Everyone". Now on the permissions entry tab, click "Traverse Folder / Execute File" in the DENY column. Then select "apply onto" as "Files Only". OK your way out of all that.
Now no one can execute files in c:\temp or its subfolders, since the entry will be inherited by subfolders by default.
You can go so far as to set that up on your entire drive, but I would strongly suggest disabling inherited permissions (select COPY when prompted) on Program Files and the Windows (or WINNT) folder. Otherwise, you may find yourself screwed.
First, XP autorestarts on a blue screen. AKA it resets immediately. Better yet, go into the event log and you will see the equivalent to what a bluescreen will tell you in there about 'system rebooted due to a bugcheck' or some such.
Secondly, perhaps some of your colleagues have hardware problems with Windows 2000 because they are using esoteric hardware with poorly written drivers, or perhaps even no drivers for win2k and they are using nt4 drivers (which are poorly written and depend on specifically having nt4 present).
Windows 2000 is in every measurable way better than NT4, technological luddites notwithstanding. Some people just bitch and whine about anything new because they don't know any better.
I don't know where you people are getting all this 'XP is crap' stuff from. It is the same kernel (mostly) as Windows 2000.
I'll tell you this, we have nearly completed a rollout of XP to ALL of our client workstations. Our helpdesk calls have dropped significantly because of that. The machines are real workhorses.
Now occasionally, we have found certain machines to be flaky but simple driver upgrades solved the problem. Honestly, bad hardware or bad drivers are almost the only way to bring down a 2K or XP machine. Stick to all WHQL-certified drivers if you can.
But I'm sure Win2K, Linux, et al NEVER EVER have driver problems, oh no...
If you've been waiting this long for a stable NT4 system you should have upgraded to Win2K a long time ago. Our DCs and Exchange servers run continuously unless we take them down for a patch or hardware upgrade.
The problem with Microsoft stuff has always been that it is easy to use, meaning your average Joe Know-nothing things he's done a bang-up job setting things up when in reality the entire network infrastructure is one big house of cards ready to collapse at the slightest security breech.
That's where I think Microsoft has done a better job with Windows 2003. Time will tell of course, but so far it seems to do a much better job of automatically putting everything into the most secure state possible. No extra services are installed by default, and when you do install some (like IIS), they are locked down. You must go in and specifically enable the features you want.