One of the things I miss about the glory days of Napster was being able to look at the entire list that someone had shared. Currently you can really only look for what you're already looking for and can't easily find new music. Let alone find something you really like. It's free, but not ideal by any means.
One summary of the article is simply "selling individual tracks alone won't cut it." Selling individual tracks at a reasonable price with guaranteed quality and availability is not enough.
If they can introduce listeners to music they may like but do not yet own, then they will succeed. If not......well......could it really get any worse?
you worried me for a sec and I went to check the drivers here nothing fancy in the search, it's the standard nForce driver page and they have * Win98SE * WinME * Windows 2000 * Windows XP * Linux
Right there. Now perhaps you only had Win95x to go from, but I think Win98SE is still a good solution for me...
Yes, ActiveX does a lot more than jump from a server into your browser and spin. Not often from my experience, but it is possible;-)
You could, say, write an image editor or an archive utility as an ActiveX control and use the COM handling techniques to control the data regardles if it is on the desktop, in an office document, or on a remote server. I've got to admint, this sounds like a pretty cool idea.
But, back to practical usage - part of ActiveX in the confines of.NET is to get the new portions of your program, as well as your new programs, over the network. It serves the data from a server (remote host) to your client (your desktop, etc). A file is transferred, from server to desktop. By definition, downloaded.
Furthermore, this seems to be supported by your citation - "enhancements specifically designed to facilitate distribution of components over high-latency networks and to provide integration of controls into Web browsers" sounds like it confirms Bill Joy's side to me, even if he glossed over some other neat tricks in the MS bag.
Now, as far as security goes, I admit that I've never been fond of the way that IE handles its zones and it looks like.NET is using the same basic framework. Maybe if they add some extra interfaces for what falls into each zone we'll have a start of an improvement.
I'm also not very fond of this 'no sandbox' concept. We've already had a faked signature intercepted, and with the ActiveX debut there was that protest/demonstration page which would, without prompting, shut down your system via ActiveX controls. So far MS has not done anything to set my security expectatinos better than they left them.
"The real DOS programmers use 'COPY CON FILENAME.EXE" for example.
Or one that happened to me - talking a (l)user over the phone through using edlin to configure kermit as a terminal program for a user on Win 3.1 over a DOS version too old to have EDIT.EXE (what was that, DOS 3.3?)
Naturally, for sake of Murphy as well as bonus points, I hadn't touched edlin for some 3 years before that call.
I don't know whether to scream or pat my back on that one.
Yes, the big 3 make a lot of money in hardware and then software comes cheap.
What I got was "look at the price gouging! they sell this expensive hardware and then, um, charge much less from there. yeah. evil price gougers!" and completely trip themselves up.
I can't help but think of the comparison between European and Merkin highway construction
Europe: We will negotiate price for a company to build and maintain this infrastructure for 50 years.
U.S.A: OK, the road build 3 years ago fell apart again, how much do we have to pay for one of you companies to fix it this time?
(no source to back up E.U. policy, sorry)
They are making broad critiques on the software design process, but they are not examining either side in any detail other than price of software development.
If you've programmed in COBOL for your entire career, VB is likely to be a proprietary environment.
If you've programmed in VB for your entire career, COBOL is likely to be a proprietary environment.
If you've programmed for a specific companies mainframe for your entire career, chances are that the custom apps and scripts are stacked on top of each other in such a manner that *any* other development environment, or other company is going to be a proprietary environment.
They're casting stones at them, and not only am I not sure what they're attacking, I don't know what they're defending either.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the things I miss about the glory days of Napster was being able to look at the entire list that someone had shared. Currently you can really only look for what you're already looking for and can't easily find new music. Let alone find something you really like. It's free, but not ideal by any means.
...well... ...could it really get any worse?
One summary of the article is simply "selling individual tracks alone won't cut it." Selling individual tracks at a reasonable price with guaranteed quality and availability is not enough.
If they can introduce listeners to music they may like but do not yet own, then they will succeed. If not...
you worried me for a sec and I went to check the drivers here
nothing fancy in the search, it's the standard nForce driver page and they have
* Win98SE
* WinME
* Windows 2000
* Windows XP
* Linux
Right there. Now perhaps you only had Win95x to go from, but I think Win98SE is still a good solution for me...
Yes, ActiveX does a lot more than jump from a server into your browser and spin. Not often from my experience, but it is possible ;-)
.NET is to get the new portions of your program, as well as your new programs, over the network. It serves the data from a server (remote host) to your client (your desktop, etc). A file is transferred, from server to desktop. By definition, downloaded.
.NET is using the same basic framework. Maybe if they add some extra interfaces for what falls into each zone we'll have a start of an improvement.
You could, say, write an image editor or an archive utility as an ActiveX control and use the COM handling techniques to control the data regardles if it is on the desktop, in an office document, or on a remote server. I've got to admint, this sounds like a pretty cool idea.
But, back to practical usage - part of ActiveX in the confines of
Furthermore, this seems to be supported by your citation - "enhancements specifically designed to facilitate distribution of components over high-latency networks and to provide integration of controls into Web browsers" sounds like it confirms Bill Joy's side to me, even if he glossed over some other neat tricks in the MS bag.
Now, as far as security goes, I admit that I've never been fond of the way that IE handles its zones and it looks like
I'm also not very fond of this 'no sandbox' concept. We've already had a faked signature intercepted, and with the ActiveX debut there was that protest/demonstration page which would, without prompting, shut down your system via ActiveX controls. So far MS has not done anything to set my security expectatinos better than they left them.
No there's some goodies you can tall-tale about.
"The real DOS programmers use 'COPY CON FILENAME.EXE" for example.
Or one that happened to me - talking a (l)user over the phone through using edlin to configure kermit as a terminal program for a user on Win 3.1 over a DOS version too old to have EDIT.EXE (what was that, DOS 3.3?)
Naturally, for sake of Murphy as well as bonus points, I hadn't touched edlin for some 3 years before that call.
I don't know whether to scream or pat my back on that one.
Yes, the big 3 make a lot of money in hardware and then software comes cheap.
What I got was "look at the price gouging! they sell this expensive hardware and then, um, charge much less from there. yeah. evil price gougers!" and completely trip themselves up.
I can't help but think of the comparison between European and Merkin highway construction
Europe: We will negotiate price for a company to build and maintain this infrastructure for 50 years.
U.S.A: OK, the road build 3 years ago fell apart again, how much do we have to pay for one of you companies to fix it this time?
(no source to back up E.U. policy, sorry)
They are making broad critiques on the software design process, but they are not examining either side in any detail other than price of software development.
If you've programmed in COBOL for your entire career, VB is likely to be a proprietary environment.
If you've programmed in VB for your entire career, COBOL is likely to be a proprietary environment.
If you've programmed for a specific companies mainframe for your entire career, chances are that the custom apps and scripts are stacked on top of each other in such a manner that *any* other development environment, or other company is going to be a proprietary environment.
They're casting stones at them, and not only am I not sure what they're attacking, I don't know what they're defending either.
Now you see the money....
Now you don't.
so what exactly are they saying here?