If there is one universal truth in this world... It is that Microsoft does not like breaking backwards compatibility.
They are, however, doing this with.Net. They've completely ripped the foundation out from Visual Basic and the migration from VB6 to VB.NET is somewhat painful.
I highly doubt they'll be doing that again, unless it is to completely scrap the.Net framework and start up something new.
If you try to compete against Microsoft by giving away an OS for free and making money off support and services... And if this competition actually is successful(so far it's not because of the lack of stability and robustness)...
Then Microsoft will clearly have to move to counter the competition. They will do so by giving their OS away for free and making money off support and services.
I can't believe you didn't realize this?
BTW, MSN and the other MS websites are not cash generating. They've been liquidating them piece by piece over the past year.
"Referring to it as a.NET clone mires it in all this Passport crap"
As someone who has been following.NET fairly well from a Microsoft perspective, I'm actually very amazed at how easily people have decided to confuse it with just Passport.
I'm also trying to figure out exactly what the complaint is with Passport, but my mind isn't as creative as someone like Petreley.
Well yes. I tried to explain VMWare to some of our technical people at work, and they were baffled.:(
But even so, VMWare does have certain limitations because it emulates so many device drivers. Still VMWare is a pretty good solution for testing.
There is also a new product from Connectix that claims to be similar. Unfortunately they don't have a trial, and it's by the same company that screwed me over back in 1995 with RAM Doubler.
Mike Tiemann from Redhat sure looked like a flaming ideologue while giving his sermon.
Even watching the panel discussion. Shirky, Behlenhoff, O'Reilly, Stutz and Mundie all came off as rational individuals looking for an interesting discussion on improving the market.
I think it's kind of interesting how everybody is reacting to this with the "OpenSSH REWLS! SSH SUCKS!" attitude.
Reinforcing their own notions that open source software is somehow superior. I'm not certain how defensible this position is considering OpenSSH has also had quite a number of vulnerabilities of it's own.
For my purposes. I use SSH at home on my Sparc running Solaris 8. I do so because I tried OpenSSH and for whatever reason found it very difficult to configure, install and get working.
In fact I couldn't get it working. After spending a frustrating hour on it I decided to try the non-commercial version of SSH.
Compile, install... up in running with no problems.
The difference between these two products from an ease of installation was like night and day. OpenSSH suffers from the old "good enough" attitude exhibited by most open source software. SSH on the other hand you can tell they put some time into polishing which is typical of commercial software.
Is the code better? I don't know. Perhaps. But the chief difference is simply one of polish, something OpenSSH clearly does not have.
"However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here"
This statement strikes me as FUD. The only purpose it serves is to try to scare people into not downloading the source and looking at it.
If this were true then the same would apply to GPL software.
The term moron has been around for many many years.
The term 'astroturf' has been around since the 1960's when the grass died at the Astrodome and they replaced it with fake green stuff.
I'm actually somewhat amazed at how the zealotry of the anti-Microsoft crowd are willing to rewrite history in their quest for vengance against imaginary wrongs.
Huh? The power adapter is about the same size as one for a cell phone.
Actually it uses a batter similar to that found in a cellphone. Yes, Li-Ion, blah blah...
Well back when *I* was in college, around 1987 or so I purchased my first CD player.
CD's cost me $15-17 at the time.
Today I buy them for $13-15.
I don't know about cost of living, but that isn't a price increase in my book.
Re:That's still retarded.
on
BYO Battlebot
·
· Score: 2
"What would it say about humans if we took intelligent, thinking beings and threw them in a pit to fight to the death just because they were machines?"
Yeah, what happens in the.edu domain is important!
That's why Pascal was such a huge success in the business world.:)
As far as the Gartner group study versus the IDC. You don't seem to understand. The Gartner group study was designed to question and dispute the ridiculous IDC study.
Then you go on. I just have to say... COME ON!? You actually believe that interpretation of the Navy ship story? How a divide by Zero error supposedly caused Windows NT to crash. Not just the server, but all of the terminals, etc.
That story was beaten to death, and it was fairly easy to conclude that the problem was with the application software, and not the OS itself.
As far as performance. You obviously don't read TPC benchmarks but a large part of the solution is hardware dependent. The Linux results were done on an SGI with 16 processors. The top Microsoft results were done on a Compaq with 8 processors. Also in this time frame Windows 2000 Data Center edition has come out which supports 16 processors. In the top ranked TPC-W results we have just such a machine from Unisys running Win2k data center...
Just because you are incapable of comprehending my actual points doesn't mean they don't exist. ROTFL!:)
Slashdot Mirror
".NET isn't that technically great"
Why do you feel that way? Have you even bothered to look into it.
.Net has some really smart minds behind it, and technically it's better than Java on paper anyway.
If there is one universal truth in this world... It is that Microsoft does not like breaking backwards compatibility.
.Net. They've completely ripped the foundation out from Visual Basic and the migration from VB6 to VB.NET is somewhat painful.
.Net framework and start up something new.
They are, however, doing this with
I highly doubt they'll be doing that again, unless it is to completely scrap the
Of course it will happen.
You wanted competition, now you got it.
If you try to compete against Microsoft by giving away an OS for free and making money off support and services... And if this competition actually is successful(so far it's not because of the lack of stability and robustness)...
Then Microsoft will clearly have to move to counter the competition. They will do so by giving their OS away for free and making money off support and services.
I can't believe you didn't realize this?
BTW, MSN and the other MS websites are not cash generating. They've been liquidating them piece by piece over the past year.
"Referring to it as a .NET clone mires it in all this Passport crap"
.NET fairly well from a Microsoft perspective, I'm actually very amazed at how easily people have decided to confuse it with just Passport.
As someone who has been following
I'm also trying to figure out exactly what the complaint is with Passport, but my mind isn't as creative as someone like Petreley.
That's fascinating because for the longest time vc++ conformed to the C++ standards much moreso than gcc.
That was until gcc was replaced by egcs with v2.95.
As someone who has read Petreley for the last 6 years or so, off and on... (I usually can't stomach reading an article in it's entirety)
:)
I can assure you that he is part of the ABM crowd.
I mean Microsoft, not ballistic missiles.
But personally I think Microsoft is bankrolling his column, because he provides some of the best reasons to not use Linux.
Well yes. I tried to explain VMWare to some of our technical people at work, and they were baffled. :(
But even so, VMWare does have certain limitations because it emulates so many device drivers. Still VMWare is a pretty good solution for testing.
There is also a new product from Connectix that claims to be similar. Unfortunately they don't have a trial, and it's by the same company that screwed me over back in 1995 with RAM Doubler.
Mike Tiemann from Redhat sure looked like a flaming ideologue while giving his sermon.
Even watching the panel discussion. Shirky, Behlenhoff, O'Reilly, Stutz and Mundie all came off as rational individuals looking for an interesting discussion on improving the market.
Is when Palm announces they will be building devices that run Windows CE.
:)
I give 'em two years.
"It is better to build bridges, than walls."
I wasn't able to reproduce it either.
At least it's not as simple as just trying to connect and type in a short password.
No, the libs were only half the frustrating part.
I was able to build OpenSSL and such that OpenSSH would compile.
I had it compiled and installed. Appeared to be configured correctly, but ssh clients would not authenticate with it.
I read in another post that OpenSSH has problems with Kerberos. That might be it, because I use Krb5 on my Solaris box to authenticate users.
I think it's kind of interesting how everybody is reacting to this with the "OpenSSH REWLS! SSH SUCKS!" attitude.
Reinforcing their own notions that open source software is somehow superior. I'm not certain how defensible this position is considering OpenSSH has also had quite a number of vulnerabilities of it's own.
For my purposes. I use SSH at home on my Sparc running Solaris 8. I do so because I tried OpenSSH and for whatever reason found it very difficult to configure, install and get working.
In fact I couldn't get it working. After spending a frustrating hour on it I decided to try the non-commercial version of SSH.
Compile, install... up in running with no problems.
The difference between these two products from an ease of installation was like night and day. OpenSSH suffers from the old "good enough" attitude exhibited by most open source software. SSH on the other hand you can tell they put some time into polishing which is typical of commercial software.
Is the code better? I don't know. Perhaps. But the chief difference is simply one of polish, something OpenSSH clearly does not have.
"However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here"
This statement strikes me as FUD. The only purpose it serves is to try to scare people into not downloading the source and looking at it.
If this were true then the same would apply to GPL software.
The term moron has been around for many many years.
The term 'astroturf' has been around since the 1960's when the grass died at the Astrodome and they replaced it with fake green stuff.
I'm actually somewhat amazed at how the zealotry of the anti-Microsoft crowd are willing to rewrite history in their quest for vengance against imaginary wrongs.
That's fascinating. I am not even up to date on hotfixes... I don't have the MS01-033 fix in place.
But I followed the guidelines provided by Microsoft for securing a website.
Results:
I've been probed about 30 times by systems infected by this worm, and have had no issues.
"because commingled with those MSIE DLL functions were general-use functions that the other software took advantage of, "
Yeah like that damn HTML rendering engine that is so easy to be leveraged!
Those bastards, we need to go back to the good old days when programming was hard work. To hell with component based development!
You don't think that a Web browser is pretty much an HTML rendering engine with a front end?
If the HTML rendering engine is componentized, your web browser is really just a front end that displays that and has a text box to enter a URL into.
This is way IE is written.
They don't have to. There are plenty of us who will speak out on it's positive merits for free.
Huh? Those automated little ads are generally run using Macromedia Flash content.
That or animated GIFs.
Since when is Louis Armstrong an obscure jazz artist? You need to learn about cdnow.com
Huh? The power adapter is about the same size as one for a cell phone. Actually it uses a batter similar to that found in a cellphone. Yes, Li-Ion, blah blah...
Well back when *I* was in college, around 1987 or so I purchased my first CD player.
CD's cost me $15-17 at the time.
Today I buy them for $13-15.
I don't know about cost of living, but that isn't a price increase in my book.
"What would it say about humans if we took intelligent, thinking beings and threw them in a pit to fight to the death just because they were machines?"
It's been done.
Or don't you remember Roman history?
Yeah, what happens in the .edu domain is important!
:)
:)
That's why Pascal was such a huge success in the business world.
As far as the Gartner group study versus the IDC. You don't seem to understand. The Gartner group study was designed to question and dispute the ridiculous IDC study.
Then you go on. I just have to say... COME ON!? You actually believe that interpretation of the Navy ship story? How a divide by Zero error supposedly caused Windows NT to crash. Not just the server, but all of the terminals, etc.
That story was beaten to death, and it was fairly easy to conclude that the problem was with the application software, and not the OS itself.
As far as performance. You obviously don't read TPC benchmarks but a large part of the solution is hardware dependent. The Linux results were done on an SGI with 16 processors. The top Microsoft results were done on a Compaq with 8 processors. Also in this time frame Windows 2000 Data Center edition has come out which supports 16 processors. In the top ranked TPC-W results we have just such a machine from Unisys running Win2k data center...
Just because you are incapable of comprehending my actual points doesn't mean they don't exist. ROTFL!