I have nothing but respect for Linus. He just plain gets it.
Yeah, he should port the kernel to Windows, that just works?
(sigh)
What's he doing running Fedora for then? Doesn't everyone know its Redhat's bleeding edge experimental distro - stuff that works there gets put into RedHat AS. You've got to expect the occasional new thing will appear there that doesn't work as fully as you wanted.
I suppose KDE 3.5 is still ready for you to use. The problem seems to be that v4 wasn't properly communication to the disto-makers that they should not use it until it was ready. Apparently 4.2 is the version that has all the stuff you liked in 3.5, plus some more.
I thought HP was a plaintiff - when they applied, Vista Ready meant "Aero ready". Later, after they had marketed their correspondingly expensive machines, Intel asked for the bar to be lowered.
So, you're suggesting Microsoft engaged in a campaign to advertise a variety of systems as "Vista Capable" to the one group most capable of recognizing that Microsoft was lying to them?
but Apache has had FastCGI for years, whereas IIS7 (on Vista SP1 IIRC) is quite new. and even then, requires a patch or two
Not to mention that FastCGI is pretty much the same thing on both webservers, or that Apache doesn't require such things as they tend to be built into the server as modules.
Historically speaking, there haven't been any useful Microsoft technologies...
Hey stupid, ever heard of the INTERNET?!
The internet is a Microsoft technology? I guess you think Tim Berners-Lee's NextStep computers were really running Vista, and tcp/ip is just a layer on top of Lanmanager!
well, lets flip that on its head and ask "how much would the CEO of the child protection organisation pay to save..... etc". Possibly the answer is "depends on how much I get paid myself".
Of course, its always easier to expect *other* people to pay.
Before you know it, all CSS standards will conform to the IE 'standard' only.
Other browser developers will be scratching their heads, "I'm sure I followed the standard document correctly, but it fails the test-case. What could be wrong!?!?":-)
WCF.. from the book by Juval Lowy, I read that WCF supports many different communication protocols, including TCP/IP.
Only thing is, the TCP/IP endpoint is "optimised" for communication with other WCF services only. Not so good for standards-based interoperability. MS says themselves that if you want to communicate with 3rd party systems, then a web service is the only option - not a socket.
Isn't that a good thing then? McNealy, with the benefit of hindsight, will say "we ignored OSS and seriously hurt our company. If we'd done OSS better and earlier, we'd have reaped the following benefits".
It might be one thing to ask him to make the future better, but you can reliably ask him about lessons learned from past cock-ups.
Personally, I think that they should keep the back-end rendering engine (perhaps open the API so it can be replaced with something more secure and standards compliant)
Then they could drop IE as a bundled application, instead provide a very small cut-down browser (like notepad is to word processors) that didn't have javascript, or support for hosting browser objects or activex or java or anything like that. You could download FF or Opera using that, and even use it to safely surf the web:)
But I reckon all that will come out of it is that OEMs will choose which browser to install, and MS will remove the 'make sure IE is the default browser' option by default.
So, the argument is valid, and abundance of Linux servers does not enter into the equation
not quite true, there is an abundance of Linux servers out there, and they do get hacked quite regularly. If you go to any web hosting forum, you'll find lots of people asking "how do I secure my server". There are lots of companies that will secure it for you.
The trouble is that a lot of people get a virtual or dedicated server, install linux on it, then cpanel and then (ignorantly) assume that's all they need to do. These tend to be the same people offering unlimited hosting plans for $1.99 a month, and I'd be happier if they went out of business quicker, but there seems to be an unlimited number of them, and every one of their insecure servers is worth a lot more to a hacker than 100 desktops.
no, lets pull those dlls out of there.. and let the developers download them as a re-distributable package. Or do you think that all the other things you might want to do must be bundled with your OS?
Last time I worked with a web service, I had to download a dev package to do it (ok, now I have to download.NET framework instead, sigh), why should working with the internet be any different?
But the problem isn't the dlls, its the applications MS builds using them. If MS provided those dlls but didn't provide IE, and let the 3rd party aftermarket grow, no-one would have a problem. Its because MS decides OS also equals application vendor that we have so many monopoly issues.
combine that with the relatively high accuracy/precision of the blood test
What's really interesting is a little programme on drunk drivers just before christmas. They took a range of people who had convictions, put them in a room and gave them free booze (hmm), then breathalysed them. The results were all over the place. one (admittedly large) bloke drank 6 pints, yet he blew a way below the limit. one woman who had 2 bacardi breezers was twice over the limit.
None of them managed to drive safely on the interactive computer driving test (ie a video game) afterwards.
So breath tests aren't too accurate at all. I was surprised at the range, the UK doesn't have particularly lax limits (they say 2 pints should be enough to take you over the limit)
in the UK, the hand-held testers are indicative only. If you fail the test, you're taken to the station for a breath test on a seriously big machine (think old minicomputer sized) or have a blood test, taken by a doctor, for use in a subsequent court case.
I'm sure there are all kinds of health-and-safety, human-rights, and civil-liberties reasons why blood samples cannot be taken at the roadside by a police officer.
...then your code is horribly hard to support and maintain.
you've seen our product!:-)
Its big and complex and solves many problems, even if it was well-documented and well-implemented and intuitive, you'd still need someone to help support you.
Slashdot Mirror
It does eat up a little CPU though :/ So probably not worth it.
Just as long as you don't claim my PC is Emerald-Ready, it'll be fine :)
I have nothing but respect for Linus. He just plain gets it.
Yeah, he should port the kernel to Windows, that just works?
(sigh)
What's he doing running Fedora for then? Doesn't everyone know its Redhat's bleeding edge experimental distro - stuff that works there gets put into RedHat AS. You've got to expect the occasional new thing will appear there that doesn't work as fully as you wanted.
So maybe, he doesn't get it.
I suppose KDE 3.5 is still ready for you to use. The problem seems to be that v4 wasn't properly communication to the disto-makers that they should not use it until it was ready. Apparently 4.2 is the version that has all the stuff you liked in 3.5, plus some more.
I thought HP was a plaintiff - when they applied, Vista Ready meant "Aero ready". Later, after they had marketed their correspondingly expensive machines, Intel asked for the bar to be lowered.
That's bad enough, but if you read http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2008403670_microsoft18.html">some reports, its a load of MS executives who think the downgrade was misleading too.
So, you're suggesting Microsoft engaged in a campaign to advertise a variety of systems as "Vista Capable" to the one group most capable of recognizing that Microsoft was lying to them?
that'll be Microsoft windows product management Vice-Presidents then.
but Apache has had FastCGI for years, whereas IIS7 (on Vista SP1 IIRC) is quite new. and even then, requires a patch or two
Not to mention that FastCGI is pretty much the same thing on both webservers, or that Apache doesn't require such things as they tend to be built into the server as modules.
Enjoy your stupid bias though.
Historically speaking, there haven't been any useful Microsoft technologies ...
Hey stupid, ever heard of the INTERNET?!
The internet is a Microsoft technology? I guess you think Tim Berners-Lee's NextStep computers were really running Vista, and tcp/ip is just a layer on top of Lanmanager!
well, lets flip that on its head and ask "how much would the CEO of the child protection organisation pay to save..... etc". Possibly the answer is "depends on how much I get paid myself".
Of course, its always easier to expect *other* people to pay.
ah, but who tests the test-suites?
Before you know it, all CSS standards will conform to the IE 'standard' only.
Other browser developers will be scratching their heads, "I'm sure I followed the standard document correctly, but it fails the test-case. What could be wrong!?!?" :-)
WCF.. from the book by Juval Lowy, I read that WCF supports many different communication protocols, including TCP/IP.
Only thing is, the TCP/IP endpoint is "optimised" for communication with other WCF services only. Not so good for standards-based interoperability. MS says themselves that if you want to communicate with 3rd party systems, then a web service is the only option - not a socket.
Isn't that a good thing then? McNealy, with the benefit of hindsight, will say "we ignored OSS and seriously hurt our company. If we'd done OSS better and earlier, we'd have reaped the following benefits".
It might be one thing to ask him to make the future better, but you can reliably ask him about lessons learned from past cock-ups.
yeah, but he never said what kind of, or how many apps he was running. 8Gb just means you can run more stuff, maybe he does just that compared to you.
Personally, I think that they should keep the back-end rendering engine (perhaps open the API so it can be replaced with something more secure and standards compliant)
Then they could drop IE as a bundled application, instead provide a very small cut-down browser (like notepad is to word processors) that didn't have javascript, or support for hosting browser objects or activex or java or anything like that. You could download FF or Opera using that, and even use it to safely surf the web :)
But I reckon all that will come out of it is that OEMs will choose which browser to install, and MS will remove the 'make sure IE is the default browser' option by default.
I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this
Punitive damages, and their lawyers fees paid.
So, the argument is valid, and abundance of Linux servers does not enter into the equation
not quite true, there is an abundance of Linux servers out there, and they do get hacked quite regularly. If you go to any web hosting forum, you'll find lots of people asking "how do I secure my server". There are lots of companies that will secure it for you.
The trouble is that a lot of people get a virtual or dedicated server, install linux on it, then cpanel and then (ignorantly) assume that's all they need to do. These tend to be the same people offering unlimited hosting plans for $1.99 a month, and I'd be happier if they went out of business quicker, but there seems to be an unlimited number of them, and every one of their insecure servers is worth a lot more to a hacker than 100 desktops.
Nothing today prevents OEMs from say, installing FF, and hiding the IE icons from the desktop and quick launch toolbar.
Apparently Microsoft does (in the T&C of their contracts with OEM suppliers). How many OEMs have you seen that bundle firefox with a new install?
Please name another ubiquitously-installed system for intelligently processing user input and then delivering them a file, using a graphic interface.
Explorer. Click "setup.exe"
(ok, sometimes you have to insert CD into drive beforehand)
Reminds me of when MS was making rumblings that Linux was illegally undercutting
you can guarantee they'd have sued, if they could have found someone to file against.
no, lets pull those dlls out of there.. and let the developers download them as a re-distributable package. Or do you think that all the other things you might want to do must be bundled with your OS?
Last time I worked with a web service, I had to download a dev package to do it (ok, now I have to download .NET framework instead, sigh), why should working with the internet be any different?
But the problem isn't the dlls, its the applications MS builds using them. If MS provided those dlls but didn't provide IE, and let the 3rd party aftermarket grow, no-one would have a problem. Its because MS decides OS also equals application vendor that we have so many monopoly issues.
is it? I downloaded Opera just fine from within Firefox.
Don't they ship Opera on CD if you ask, or is it not bundled on a magazine coverdisk (ah, the good old ways of installing software!)
combine that with the relatively high accuracy/precision of the blood test
What's really interesting is a little programme on drunk drivers just before christmas. They took a range of people who had convictions, put them in a room and gave them free booze (hmm), then breathalysed them. The results were all over the place. one (admittedly large) bloke drank 6 pints, yet he blew a way below the limit. one woman who had 2 bacardi breezers was twice over the limit.
None of them managed to drive safely on the interactive computer driving test (ie a video game) afterwards.
So breath tests aren't too accurate at all. I was surprised at the range, the UK doesn't have particularly lax limits (they say 2 pints should be enough to take you over the limit)
in the UK, the hand-held testers are indicative only. If you fail the test, you're taken to the station for a breath test on a seriously big machine (think old minicomputer sized) or have a blood test, taken by a doctor, for use in a subsequent court case.
I'm sure there are all kinds of health-and-safety, human-rights, and civil-liberties reasons why blood samples cannot be taken at the roadside by a police officer.
personally, I'm looking forward to being a tester on this project.
This is one of those bugs that no Linux developer will admit to until they reckon they have a fix for it.
I suppose we see a lot of this in the OSS world, it reminds me of the Firefox "not a memory leak" bug that only became a bug once it had been fixed.
Its just developer's pride showing in its lesser aspect.
...then your code is horribly hard to support and maintain.
you've seen our product! :-)
Its big and complex and solves many problems, even if it was well-documented and well-implemented and intuitive, you'd still need someone to help support you.