And its been years since there was a computer I built where the (on mobo) network adapter didn't "just work" with windows.
Intel PRO/100 network chip, Dell server (being used as a XP workstation). Do you know how difficult it is to download drivers from the internet (and google why it doesn't just work) when your network isn't working because you don't have working drivers?!
Microsoft is (and has been for a few years now) fighting hard against the Linux tide on the sub-desktop. Currently, they say its 50-50... but that was years ago. I guess that's why the first result in every API search at the time returned the WinCE version.
Fast forward today, and Windows is sliding against the Penguin, which could suggest why the first result in every API search returns the.NET equivalent, and how if you install the Platform SDK, you cannot uncheck the option for.NET embedded APIs.
So.. Linux for the future, I reckon so simply because the biggest and best weathervane for increasing Linux adoption is shouting how worried they are (ie Microsoft). If MS were ignoring Linux and F/OSS then I'd think it was all hype, but as they're coughing up cash for various OSS projects, declaring how open-source friendly they are, creating their own OSS repository sites (codeplex), getting various OSS projects better integrated with Windows.. all that just shows how worried they are, so Linux is a big deal at the moment.
someone, preferably in NY, should call them up and explain they don't know what they're talking about. i wonder how much they'd pay for a proper article putting the OpenID story straight?
its not, its the value of the loss of sales due to distribution - ie if I use a P2P app and ten people download the song I'm uploading, that's 10x the cost of the song I've cost the RIAA.
At least, that's the excuse for suing for so much. Don't forget the RIAA wants $750 per song, not $200.
this isn't a lab like that - MS has several similars labs, eg the performance lab I attended once.
This is a place where you can bring your open source apps and test them working against MS products. eg, if you made an Outlook clone, you could bring it in and test it against Exchange.
Of course, it also allows MS to have a sneaky look at the competition.....
reserves mean nothing. The cost of digging it up mean a lot.
Take a look here for coal prices. I know that in the UK, we closed all the coal fields because they cost too much to dig the stuff out of the ground (compared to buying it from Australian fields). That's changed now and fields are being reopened.
from the Times in 2007 "Coal prices have soared recently, in common with other fuels. The McCloskey coal consultancy said that last month the price for world coal delivered to the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire - where the majority of Britain's coal-fired power stations are located - was $102 per tonne. This compares with $85 in January and $74 in July 2005."
Not to mention in the USA too: The company's average selling price for coal in 2007 was $52.15 per ton, and in 2008 the average price is $62.25.
Energy prices are increasing across the range, oil has little to do with energy generation.
the memory protection systems, for.NET languages, were intended to be completely bulletproof. In fact, MS goes on about how.NET applications can be verifiably proven to be completely safe WRT memory.
*if* this is an issue with that system, then.NET is screwed. MS can't really turn off the garbage collected heap, and they've put too much into the framework with this assumption. They'd have to turn.NET objects into ordinary activeX ones and then bring back all the security warnings they tried so hard to get rid of.
on the other hand, if all it is is code not marked as "unsafe" has a loophole, then they just need to mark all code as unsafe regardless. If that's what the problem is.
Its still conjecture until we get more information, but it could be pretty bad for MS (and managed code developers) if the article is right.
never underestimate just how bad a system written by a less-than-competant programmer can be. Sometimes it can be so bad you fail to understand how they came up with it.
eg. the DB schema I once had difficulty putting data into - turned out that the relationships went round in a circle, so I had to have data in the table I was trying to insert into in order to be able to insert into it. How they managed that is totally beyond me (few years ago, Oracle 7).
or the contractor on £70+ an hour who decided the best was to pass a string buffer into a routine to encrypt it, was to copy each individual character into a stl list and then reconstruct the buffer inside the routine. I'd understand that if he was being paid by the line of code.
or the credit card processing software that the development team rewrote in C++, that had a super exception hierarchy for all errors. Unfortunately, the only error you got out of it was "an exception has occurred" because they lost inherited information every time they caught them on their way to the end-user.
so its not the language or the development environment, or the system... its the muppets who are drunk in charge of a keyboard. (oh, did I mention the contractor who used to turn up slightly drunk and slowly get worse during the day as he emptied his hip flask?)
While a complete rewrite could save money in the long run, in the short term this would be very costly.
This is absolutely true, but most people make the case for the rewrite becuase, in the long term, you save on maintenance, and possibly gain on new features.
Unfortunately, what most people forget (or ignore) is that in the long run, more and more new stuff appears that makes you want to do another complete rewrite all over again. Rewriting software should always be the last resort.
That's interesting. I didn't take too close a look at the browser pages (what, read TFA?!?!), but I think push technology for browser is the ultimate thing for changing the world.
I mean, current browsers are pull clients, they retrieve data from a server and display it. If the server could push data back to the browser in-between direct requests, then you could build fully working applications, similar to desktop ones. Once you have that... your OS is just a container to run the browser, the desktop becomes something you connect to online, applications become server-based with a browser-based GUI. MS goes bankrupt, Google rules us all:)
I know you can still do this today with Java/Flash/Silverlight applets, but they're not the same thing as a Standard that provides this kind of asynchronous service. The technology is almost there with HTTP keepalives (you need to make the keepalive a lot longer once the browser has subscribed to a notification service).
Netscape probably had the right idea, but somewhat before its time. I think the time is about right for this kind of technology now we have the fast networking infrastructure in place.
Programmers are a fickle bunch, the next cool toy comes along, they'll all want to develop using it. Just look at C#/.NET and how everyone's cooing "ooo shiny".
Hence MS making more of this stuff - and pushing to have it "interoperate" with various F/OSS projects like Apache.
However, I do see an interesting item in there - Mono. See, I always thought Mono would be a teaser that persuaded developers that they should learn C#, then they could create apps on Linux just as easily as on Windows... only for them to find half the shiny bits were missing when they came to implement them, and so would end up by default as Windows developers. I'm sure MS thinks this too.
Now, what happens if Mono does deliver? Why would anyone want to write for Windows then (if they had to pay a large fee to licence the OS in the first place, and then charge a large licence fee from their customers) when they could ship app and everything running on a free OS?
I wonder what would MS do if Mono gets good. It could be the end of MS, assuming the top management didn't do something about it and I can't see them sitting back saying "its OK, our online advertising revenue will keep us afloat":)
so what? Is this a 'my list of languages is bigger than yours' waving exercise? The poster wanted to know if the JVM supported other languages, I showed him it did. That's all.
Does this mean that Mono, if done properly/fully, will supplant MS on the server, and begin to supplant it on the desktop? If it is that easy to move your code across, and the famework is there, and the GUI technologies (shame Mono doesn't intend to support WPF anytime soon as that seems to be the current fad) are there... then why would anyone want to spend $$$ on a MS OS, when they can scale up horizontally with commodity hardware and as many free OSs on it as you like. I see Linux servers growing all the time, when companies like Oracle sell you their DB, they give you a free OS to run it, all "optimized" and "supported" and so a very attractive proposition for PHBs. Perhaps one day all applications will be sold like this - as a VM image running a free OS where they can setup the installation for you.
It all worries me - partly the.NET lock-in I see with MS, where I am sure they think Mono won't succeed beyond the basics and they drop practically all support for all non-MS systems (just seems that way at the moment). That would mean they're happy with this.NET strategy to keep developers on Windows.
If Mono does start to succeed, what happens then? Will Ballmer say 'oh well, good for them?' or will the big management at MS do something? I do see these as interesting times.
then just recompile it under Mono. Problem solved, surely. (well, it is if I believe all the rantings from the pro-Mono/.NET crowd who have posted a lot on this thread). Can't see the code? just drop it into ILDASM.
BTW I assume you meant the VI client, as the ESX console *is* Linux.
I'm not so sure that the CLR is better designed, probably it is (despite some horrendous decisions as expressed by one of the guys who wrote it - Chris Brumme, google for his blog. It, and he, is brilliant).
Of course, even if CLR is better designed, its still a managed platform with the IMHO poor design decisions like garbage collection and reflection in there. I remember when it first came out and we had to badger MS to realise that finalisers weren't as good as they said they were. Eventualy they implemented the IDispose design pattern, though that would have been much better as part of the language instead of a bodged-in standard interface.
Java supports more languages. VB for one though I don't know how good/wel/etc it is. Anyway here is a citation, and another.
I've got to say this is my issue with the 'reimplement MS tech' - what else could you have done with all those resources that a) truly innovated, b) did something open and free, c) did something better.
People do go on about this for other OSS projects - why make another CD Burner when you could contribute to an existing project. I think the consensus is that people create OSS projects for the "glory", you don't get quite the same amount of kudos for being 'just another contributer'. I'm not sure if Miguel falls into this category with the backing of Novell, but I'm sure they could have invested those resources for a much better return.
What'll be more interesting is if it fragments the PC market.
If you want a super-fast ray-tr, erm, protein folding application you need one with the Larrabee chipset. If you want to play the latest game you'll need a traditional PC + graphics card. Would it be possible that business PCs turn to Larrabee and home PCs stick with current architectures?
why would notification be ignored? We already teach people to check the padlock for secure comms, and that was accepted practice for some time.
If the address bar turned amber instead of red/green then that would be ok - the user can be told, if it turns amber you need to check that its ok. Once a certificate is added via the clickety-click method, then there is no additional warning. So once a user is taught how to do that, they're unprotected. Its a bit like UAC - once you've seen it a couple of times, you start clicking 'yes, I do want the f**' without even looking.
A different notification would be sufficient. People may not be technically savvy enough to understand certificate lists, but they are competent enough to know that a flashing amber address bar means to do their own checking (or call someone).
Slashdot Mirror
And its been years since there was a computer I built where the (on mobo) network adapter didn't "just work" with windows.
Intel PRO/100 network chip, Dell server (being used as a XP workstation). Do you know how difficult it is to download drivers from the internet (and google why it doesn't just work) when your network isn't working because you don't have working drivers?!
Microsoft is (and has been for a few years now) fighting hard against the Linux tide on the sub-desktop. Currently, they say its 50-50... but that was years ago. I guess that's why the first result in every API search at the time returned the WinCE version.
Fast forward today, and Windows is sliding against the Penguin, which could suggest why the first result in every API search returns the .NET equivalent, and how if you install the Platform SDK, you cannot uncheck the option for .NET embedded APIs.
So.. Linux for the future, I reckon so simply because the biggest and best weathervane for increasing Linux adoption is shouting how worried they are (ie Microsoft). If MS were ignoring Linux and F/OSS then I'd think it was all hype, but as they're coughing up cash for various OSS projects, declaring how open-source friendly they are, creating their own OSS repository sites (codeplex), getting various OSS projects better integrated with Windows.. all that just shows how worried they are, so Linux is a big deal at the moment.
Repeat after me, XBox 360 uses a modified DX9 implementation, not DX10.
perhaps they should rephrase that - how many current DX10 games will work on anything other than Vista? :)
someone, preferably in NY, should call them up and explain they don't know what they're talking about. i wonder how much they'd pay for a proper article putting the OpenID story straight?
its not, its the value of the loss of sales due to distribution - ie if I use a P2P app and ten people download the song I'm uploading, that's 10x the cost of the song I've cost the RIAA.
At least, that's the excuse for suing for so much. Don't forget the RIAA wants $750 per song, not $200.
this isn't a lab like that - MS has several similars labs, eg the performance lab I attended once.
This is a place where you can bring your open source apps and test them working against MS products. eg, if you made an Outlook clone, you could bring it in and test it against Exchange.
Of course, it also allows MS to have a sneaky look at the competition.....
reserves mean nothing. The cost of digging it up mean a lot.
Take a look here for coal prices. I know that in the UK, we closed all the coal fields because they cost too much to dig the stuff out of the ground (compared to buying it from Australian fields). That's changed now and fields are being reopened.
from the Times in 2007
"Coal prices have soared recently, in common with other fuels. The McCloskey coal consultancy said that last month the price for world coal delivered to the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire - where the majority of Britain's coal-fired power stations are located - was $102 per tonne. This compares with $85 in January and $74 in July 2005."
Not to mention in the USA too:
The company's average selling price for coal in 2007 was $52.15 per ton, and in 2008 the average price is $62.25.
Energy prices are increasing across the range, oil has little to do with energy generation.
the memory protection systems, for .NET languages, were intended to be completely bulletproof. In fact, MS goes on about how .NET applications can be verifiably proven to be completely safe WRT memory.
*if* this is an issue with that system, then .NET is screwed. MS can't really turn off the garbage collected heap, and they've put too much into the framework with this assumption. They'd have to turn .NET objects into ordinary activeX ones and then bring back all the security warnings they tried so hard to get rid of.
on the other hand, if all it is is code not marked as "unsafe" has a loophole, then they just need to mark all code as unsafe regardless. If that's what the problem is.
Its still conjecture until we get more information, but it could be pretty bad for MS (and managed code developers) if the article is right.
never underestimate just how bad a system written by a less-than-competant programmer can be. Sometimes it can be so bad you fail to understand how they came up with it.
eg. the DB schema I once had difficulty putting data into - turned out that the relationships went round in a circle, so I had to have data in the table I was trying to insert into in order to be able to insert into it. How they managed that is totally beyond me (few years ago, Oracle 7).
or the contractor on £70+ an hour who decided the best was to pass a string buffer into a routine to encrypt it, was to copy each individual character into a stl list and then reconstruct the buffer inside the routine. I'd understand that if he was being paid by the line of code.
or the credit card processing software that the development team rewrote in C++, that had a super exception hierarchy for all errors. Unfortunately, the only error you got out of it was "an exception has occurred" because they lost inherited information every time they caught them on their way to the end-user.
so its not the language or the development environment, or the system... its the muppets who are drunk in charge of a keyboard. (oh, did I mention the contractor who used to turn up slightly drunk and slowly get worse during the day as he emptied his hip flask?)
While a complete rewrite could save money in the long run, in the short term this would be very costly.
This is absolutely true, but most people make the case for the rewrite becuase, in the long term, you save on maintenance, and possibly gain on new features.
Unfortunately, what most people forget (or ignore) is that in the long run, more and more new stuff appears that makes you want to do another complete rewrite all over again. Rewriting software should always be the last resort.
That's interesting. I didn't take too close a look at the browser pages (what, read TFA?!?!), but I think push technology for browser is the ultimate thing for changing the world.
I mean, current browsers are pull clients, they retrieve data from a server and display it. If the server could push data back to the browser in-between direct requests, then you could build fully working applications, similar to desktop ones. Once you have that... your OS is just a container to run the browser, the desktop becomes something you connect to online, applications become server-based with a browser-based GUI. MS goes bankrupt, Google rules us all :)
I know you can still do this today with Java/Flash/Silverlight applets, but they're not the same thing as a Standard that provides this kind of asynchronous service. The technology is almost there with HTTP keepalives (you need to make the keepalive a lot longer once the browser has subscribed to a notification service).
Netscape probably had the right idea, but somewhat before its time. I think the time is about right for this kind of technology now we have the fast networking infrastructure in place.
I know - I'm glad at least 1 person got that uid joke :-)
Yeah, but can we lay it down on say, a table?
Programmers are a fickle bunch, the next cool toy comes along, they'll all want to develop using it. Just look at C#/.NET and how everyone's cooing "ooo shiny".
Hence MS making more of this stuff - and pushing to have it "interoperate" with various F/OSS projects like Apache.
However, I do see an interesting item in there - Mono. See, I always thought Mono would be a teaser that persuaded developers that they should learn C#, then they could create apps on Linux just as easily as on Windows... only for them to find half the shiny bits were missing when they came to implement them, and so would end up by default as Windows developers. I'm sure MS thinks this too.
Now, what happens if Mono does deliver? Why would anyone want to write for Windows then (if they had to pay a large fee to licence the OS in the first place, and then charge a large licence fee from their customers) when they could ship app and everything running on a free OS?
I wonder what would MS do if Mono gets good. It could be the end of MS, assuming the top management didn't do something about it and I can't see them sitting back saying "its OK, our online advertising revenue will keep us afloat" :)
Most developers view open source as a means to an end, not a religion
you really are new here! :-)
so what? Is this a 'my list of languages is bigger than yours' waving exercise? The poster wanted to know if the JVM supported other languages, I showed him it did. That's all.
Does this mean that Mono, if done properly/fully, will supplant MS on the server, and begin to supplant it on the desktop? If it is that easy to move your code across, and the famework is there, and the GUI technologies (shame Mono doesn't intend to support WPF anytime soon as that seems to be the current fad) are there... then why would anyone want to spend $$$ on a MS OS, when they can scale up horizontally with commodity hardware and as many free OSs on it as you like. I see Linux servers growing all the time, when companies like Oracle sell you their DB, they give you a free OS to run it, all "optimized" and "supported" and so a very attractive proposition for PHBs. Perhaps one day all applications will be sold like this - as a VM image running a free OS where they can setup the installation for you.
It all worries me - partly the .NET lock-in I see with MS, where I am sure they think Mono won't succeed beyond the basics and they drop practically all support for all non-MS systems (just seems that way at the moment). That would mean they're happy with this .NET strategy to keep developers on Windows.
If Mono does start to succeed, what happens then? Will Ballmer say 'oh well, good for them?' or will the big management at MS do something? I do see these as interesting times.
then just recompile it under Mono. Problem solved, surely. (well, it is if I believe all the rantings from the pro-Mono/.NET crowd who have posted a lot on this thread). Can't see the code? just drop it into ILDASM.
BTW I assume you meant the VI client, as the ESX console *is* Linux.
I'm not so sure that the CLR is better designed, probably it is (despite some horrendous decisions as expressed by one of the guys who wrote it - Chris Brumme, google for his blog. It, and he, is brilliant).
Of course, even if CLR is better designed, its still a managed platform with the IMHO poor design decisions like garbage collection and reflection in there. I remember when it first came out and we had to badger MS to realise that finalisers weren't as good as they said they were. Eventualy they implemented the IDispose design pattern, though that would have been much better as part of the language instead of a bodged-in standard interface.
Java supports more languages. VB for one though I don't know how good/wel/etc it is. Anyway here is a citation, and another.
true, though imagine if they made an Exchange clone, would that have helped Linux (server) takeup a lot more than yet another programming platform?
Just one example.
there's an OSS codec pack, released by Microsoft? Really? Cool.
I guess this has the DRM stuff taken out of it already, or has MS decided it doesn't care if you pirate videos as long as you're running Linux.
BTW, the trolls come out when Mono is mentioned because MS has given them more than enough food over the last decade.
I've got to say this is my issue with the 'reimplement MS tech' - what else could you have done with all those resources that a) truly innovated, b) did something open and free, c) did something better.
People do go on about this for other OSS projects - why make another CD Burner when you could contribute to an existing project. I think the consensus is that people create OSS projects for the "glory", you don't get quite the same amount of kudos for being 'just another contributer'. I'm not sure if Miguel falls into this category with the backing of Novell, but I'm sure they could have invested those resources for a much better return.
What'll be more interesting is if it fragments the PC market.
If you want a super-fast ray-tr, erm, protein folding application you need one with the Larrabee chipset. If you want to play the latest game you'll need a traditional PC + graphics card. Would it be possible that business PCs turn to Larrabee and home PCs stick with current architectures?
why would notification be ignored? We already teach people to check the padlock for secure comms, and that was accepted practice for some time.
If the address bar turned amber instead of red/green then that would be ok - the user can be told, if it turns amber you need to check that its ok. Once a certificate is added via the clickety-click method, then there is no additional warning. So once a user is taught how to do that, they're unprotected. Its a bit like UAC - once you've seen it a couple of times, you start clicking 'yes, I do want the f**' without even looking.
A different notification would be sufficient. People may not be technically savvy enough to understand certificate lists, but they are competent enough to know that a flashing amber address bar means to do their own checking (or call someone).