My BS detector always goes red-hot on stories that blame a careless smoker for starting an inferno, because - despite having smoked for 15 years, I've yet to start even a small fire with a cigarette. If you throw a cigarette into gasoline, it goes out. If you throw it on some dry leaves, it goes out. If you throw it on cloth, it'll burn a hole...but then, it'll go out. If you throw it on some sawdust...well, I haven't tried that one - but I suspect it'd still go out. And since the building is covered in flame-retardant asbestos, I'd think it'd be even *harder* to light on fire. I concede that it is *possible* that a lit cigarette, combined with optimal environmental conditions, could start a fire. But to have 10 floors go up in flames certainly suggests that the structure itself (or something in it) was highly flammable to begin with.
A little Googling brings up the fact that "inspectors knew there was a blatant disregard for even the most basic fire-safety rules":
[They] did not have enough safety managers to watch for blowtorch sparks
Burning details are being manned by only one fireguard. Demo foreman has been strongly advised of the need for an additional fireguard or perhaps two
No fireguard spotted during burning activity on the 36th Fl. west side
Torch operator on 28 cutting off small beams and fireguards were in place on 28, no fireguard on 27 or 26. Small fire on ceiling of 26 was put out by roofers. I called Eric the demo supervisor and explained to him again that any floors below demolition that sparks fall MUST have a fireguard present at all times
A small fire from sparks from the roof started on S/E side column of 22nd floor. I told Eric from J Galt the need for more than one fireguard.
Demo foreman was advised to halt burning activity within 10 ft. of fuel cans on 29th Fl.
Oh, but "on the 6th floor N/W room 13 pallets of batteries and 19 drums. Many cigarette butts were found along with a Weber black small BBQ". Yeah, I can really see why "investigators theorize [that] a worker carelessly chucked a lit cigarette, igniting the blaze" (that started on the 17th floor). Surely it wouldn't have anything to do with the repeated fires they were starting from demolition, or the "burning activity" near gasoline, or even the indoor BBQ. Or, that both the inspectors' and the companies' ass would be on the line if they were found negligent for the fire - much easier to blame a nameless construction worker.
The only user focused difference between the 2 that I see, is that MediaDirect is/was positioned as a way to access your files - and Latitude ON is positioned as a way to access the Internet.
Then, as mentioned, there's Windows Sideshow, which even Dell is prototyping. SideShow is more ambitious than Latitude ON, encompassing everything from sinlge line text displays to show system stats, to ARM based Windows Mobile devices to check email, play media files, etc. So far, it's failed to gain much traction in the marketplace - but, I think that it's still too early to call it dead.
If you take a look at some of the prototype developments in the SideShow remote computer spaces, I think you'll agree that all the functionality of Latitude ON is there - it's just a seperate device instead of being housed in the same case as a laptop.
So - it's not like Microsoft isn't aware or working on this market, Dell and Co. just decided to go their own way. Big deal - happens all the time. While MediaDirect used XP Embedded, other manafacturers were using Linux based OS's. Wake me up in 2 or 3+ years when the market has settled down, and we can declare a winner.
Since nobody else seems to understand the difference between an electronic cash register and a PC based point of sale system - I'll throw in what little I know of ECRs.
DataSym makes a software product called Comm2000 that communicates with their ECRs. It can poll nightly to retrieve sales information, or you can have the register output the data on each sale. You can also maintain SKU lists, etc.
We have a few DataSym and older Sharp registers on the network (with a serial-TCP/IP device server), and the sales are captured in real time without going through Comm2000. Formats are a little obtuse, but reverse engineerable without documentation if you needed to.
Nightly, there's a fairly old version of Comm2000 that sends out SKU lists, register layouts, etc. The processing is held together with shell scripts and some custom C code, but I think Comm2000 is the standard EXE. This is all on a UNIX box, designed circa 1993, so YMMV.
Fortunately for me, but unfortunate for you, I have very little to do with the ECR side of things. But, I'd imagine most ECRs these days offer something similar, and I see DataSym still has Comm2000. Since ECRs don't really seem to be in the/. sweet spot, I'd suggest giving your local distributor a call.
As for.Net being better - tell the Princeton university DARPA team that C# doesn't have memory leaks. Read Chris Brumme's blog for all the grubby hacks that MS made in the CLR to make things work.
I'd just like to point out that that's not a memory leak, that's by design. The objects *are* still referenced, *are* still reachable, *are* still callable (and, in fact, are called), so therefore should *not* be deleted. What's so hard to understand about that?
Nobody said Garbage Collection means you don't have to worry about memory (or that it can make up for broken code) - it just means you don't have to worry about *collecting* memory. Do you honestly think those Princeton guys would have had less bugs in C++?
What the hell type of email system do they run there?
called the e-mail system "primitive" and said it was set up in a way that created a high risk that data would be lost from White House servers where it was being archived.
It's not like email is a particularly hard thing to manage these days.
It would be costly and time-consuming for the White House to institute an e-mail retrieval program that entails pulling data off each individual workstation.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's why we have these things called servers. You know, those things with all the tubes coming in. It's generally much easier to archive, log, audit, and backup the email server than the workstations. But, if forced to, I can certainly think of a half dozen or so ways to easily backup from the workstations as well.
It sure sounds like they're running POP mailboxes, with local storage. Which means no remote access, no backups, no logging into another computer, etc. Which means they're generally just stupid and inefficient - unfortunately, par for the course.
And, yeah, setting up Exchange or something would certainly take all of a week at the most. I can see why they still haven't completed it after 3 years of work.
As for getting the data, I think the courts should just shut down the office (it's not like they could actually depend on email anyway), and have a forensics contractor go in there and image every workstation and server in the joint. And then order them to replace their "primitive" email system...before they open the office. Let's see how long it takes for them to complete the ultracomplicated task then.
Go to Google Trends, plug in your technology and its competitors. Drill down to your region and the last 12 months. If your technology doesn't show up, then you're riding a dead horse.
eg., out of Fortran, Java, C#, Lisp, COBOL in Florida, Google Trends says only C# and Java are viable choices.
For any who doubt the science behind this method, I offer the following trend graph as proof: Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Digg, DZone. This clearly shows that only Digg and Slashdot are viable choices.
Write a program that kills the process WINLOGON.EXE. Then put this in your Startup folder. Make sure everything is backed up before shutting down. When you start back up you will automaticly go to the BSOD.
Call IT. They will be confused. Tell them that there is nothing they can do. They will beleve you. Then tell them that you need that expensive computer fancy new MacBook Pro. They will beleve you. You will be happy.
Since it'll only happen on logon, any tech that I'd want working for me would deduce it's a profile problem. At that point, they can rebuild your profile (if they're nice) or just blow it out and you can drool over the MacBook for another year.
I also dislike the way that Microsoft uses its products to drag developers and systems integraters, kicking and flailing, on whatever path it's decided to follow. Want to get all old.Net v1 apps recompiled in.Net v2? You can't.
Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.
Want to support PC's that don't have.Net v2 installed and still use VS2005? You can't.
If Microsoft would just shut up with all the market-babble and open up their development process in ways that would allow people to directly contact developers, report and comment on bugs, and allow others to reliably support their products, things would be so much easier.
I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.
As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.
As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.
And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from.NET 1.1 to.NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?
I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other.NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional
WPF/E, the subset of WPF which is supposed to run in browser and cross platform - including a.NET BCL subset.
Windows Workflow Foundation, which has the potential to redefine basic business application development - including a rehostable designer that a business user can comprehend and possibly use.
LINQ, which gives C# and VB compile time support for querying Sql, object graphs, and XML.
Yeah...that's about all the interesting stuff I can think of coming out of the developer division in the near to medium term. Note that I didn't state this stuff was any good (I haven't had the chance to toy with most of it yet), but I do think it's interesting and worth talking about.
Of course, their other divisions are no slouches either, so we also have (again, in no particular order):
A brand new deployment format for Vista called Windows Imaging Format, which could make multiple Ghost images a thing of the past.
or, you could have copied the executable to C:\windows and renamed it notepad.exe. it sucks that windows doesn't use symlinks though. would make it a whole lot easier.
Well, symbolic links are out (unless you want to link to a directory, then you can use junctions, but a hard link is available and should work.
Compare IIS to Apache. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of config options in Apache while IIS must be configured using a GUI and if there isn't an option with a checkbox or text edit field or radio button or other GUI object then you can't do it.
Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.
There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.
One, as mentioned, is slipstreaming SP2 + the hotfixes. Pretty much a PITA, since you'd have to continually update your CD as new patches come up.
Two, is AutoPatcher. Slipstream SP2 and run AutoPatcher after install, and you'll get 90% of the updates. Update AutoPatcher as needed.
Three, is to hack your own. There's a couple of options for this. You can go the Unattended way and batch/Perl script it, but you still have to download the updates. But, if you do it from a network drive, at least you don't have to reburn a CD.
The better way, IMHO, is to use the Windows Update API to force the client to run Windows Update, download, install, reboot and repeat until no new updates are returned. I hacked a.NET program together to do just that, but it seems to have issues installing SP2. I haven't had time to delve into the problem yet though. That, and you need the.NET framework installed first - but a bootstrapping installer can take care of that.
Has the Bush administration actually invoked FISA as their legal basis? If so, I missed it. And, from what I've heard, it wouldn't fit. AFAIK, FISA requires either a warrant or only monitoring where no US person is likely to be involved (see Q18 in the EFF writeup).
Carter and Clinton both issued executive orders authorizing FISA monitoring, but specifically quoted FISA regulations to be followed. I haven't seen a similar order from Bush, and even according to legendary conservative Rush Limbaugh, the FISA courts were bypassed. Limbaugh's take on it was that the unprecedented denials and modifications of Bush's FISA requests forced him to go around the process.
In short, the President is not asserting legal authority under FISA. According to the Attorney General, his authority hinges (PDF) on his "inherent authority" as Commander-In-Chief, and Congress's Use of Force Resolution.
Of course, in my strict interpretation, I missed the part of the Presidential Oath, Constitution or the above resolution that grants him any power over surveillance. And, according to Daschle (partisan to be sure, but you'd think records of this kind of stuff would be easily checked), Congress specifically rejected the administration's request for having the resolution cover actions in the US.
Quest's Spotlight series are both functional and have a pretty snazzy UI. When I was demoing their Sql Server and Windows monitors, co-workers thought I was playing a game. All that eye candy is pretty taxing on processor usage, though - so you may need a dedicated box to pump it out in high res glory.
That boatload of search/replace stuff might be able to be replaced with a perl/sed/awk script.
If you're in an all-Windows shop, you can always load up knoppix to do that part -- or set aside 10 MB to do a desktop install of your favorite distro (knoppix is, once again an option) and dual boot. Better yet, just find an old machine in some storage room, somewhere that you can assign to the task.
Again though, to me using your previous/maiden name as your "undercover name" is not an affirmative action to keep your identity secret. If she used a different name, not one publicly tied to her, the trail would have gone cold quite quickly.
Not that I work for the CIA or anything, but I could come up with a few plausible reasons to use your own (maiden or otherwise) name undercover.
It's much easier to use a real name and have a verifiable (and easily known to you) backstory, than it would be to completely fictionalize 35+ years of your life and remember it - possibly under duress.. By comparison, it's pretty easy to omit key information from your true story - such as having been hired by the CIA.
Then, of course, there's the need to keep up appearances after the fact. Again, easier to use a real person that has a real verifiable life than to continue the charade of a fictional character indefinitely. Searching for a former business associate and coming up completely empty in the last 9 years might raise some concern.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered.
Just out of curiousity, I wonder what sort of "difficulties" Novak thought she might encounter? Airport delays? Autograph seekers and paparazzi? It shouldn't take a mental genius to put (former) CIA spy + foreign gov't = bad news together and come to the conclusion that "difficulties" might be a euphemism for possible serious danger.
2) Make it hashed, using a public key unique to that system. That way, the information stored is effectively useless. If a hacker gets in, all that they will be able to do is see a bunch of GUIDs. Whoop de doo.
I'm almost 100% that this is, in fact, just what is being stored. I mean, imagine actually storing a thumbprint. That's got to take up more space, and is really slow and inefficient for data lookup.
I've done some research into biometrics, and you're pretty much right on. Nobody that I'm aware of stores an actual fingerprint for biometric identification - except the police. They all store a hash based on some algorithms. Different companies have different algorithms - in fact, you have to license the alogrithm in order to use the software.
Also, unless you're the police or Big Brother, you don't just plop a thumb on a scanner and expect to be identified. Must biometrics use (at least) 2-factor authentication (what you have/know/are). There's a couple of reasons for this:
1. It's more secure than one of the common factors (have/know) alone.
2. It's incredibly expensive and error prone to do a many to many (n-to-n) match of biometric data. It's really only useful for a 1-to-n match (1 being the hash in the database, n being the number of fingers presented).
Of course, the police don't usually have the luxury of knowing who left the fingerprint at the murder scene, so they have to resort to an n-to-n lookup.
So, the usual routine is (a) present some sort of id card, give a name or id number, etc. and then (b) *verify* your identity with a biometric. Why not use pictures? Because people's appearance changes, and it can be quite difficult to tell 2 similar looking people apart. And, since this is a gym we're talking about, changing your appearance is probably a big goal of a majority of their customers.
Oh...and there's no indication where the data is being stored. It is quite possible, technically and dollar wise, to store absolutely no biometric information in a database. That's what smart cards are for. Present the card, the reader decrypts the biometrics (encrypted) stored on the card and compares with your scan. No biometric data is ever taken off the reader. Of course, it's also possible to store in a database. That allows for people who forgot/lost/destroyed their card to get in with their name/id number or get a new card without re-enrolling their biometrics (which is probably what the line was for).
That can't be right (from a licencing POV), otrherwise in order to use Samba, you'd have to buy a Windows client access licence (as in order to use Samba as a client, you need a Windows server at the other end).
I believe this is correct. A CAL (Client Access License) is not (necessarily) a Windows Client Access License. Any device or user (depending on your Windows licensing choice) needs a valid CAL to connect according to the MS license agreement. While the client may not have agreed to MS's EULA, whoever runs the Windows Server did.
Of course, this is why Samba has support for running an SMB server. Which makes it a (more or less) complete replacement for Microsoft's SMB implementation.
You know, I have my OWN reservations about flying on an airline when they have no backups and can't keep their computers from crashing. Whats to keep their planes in the air?
The Bernoulli Principle. And I don't think computers crashing are going to affect it. This isn't the Matrix, after all.
If you need references for that statement, then you aren't at a level to comprehend that.
Again. Nice of you to back up that claim. And, you're too ignorant to understand isn't going to cut it. I know that *nix is easier to diagnose in some areas, and Windows in either. By and large, however, it comes down to what you're most familiar with.
1. Boot to the aptly named Last Known Good Confinguration.
#1. I have never seen this work. Ever.
Then you probably haven't tried it enough, don't understand it, or haven't been around long enough.
2. Run Recovery Console chkdsk - since it's usually a corrupt file.
#2. In my experience it is usually a corrupt hive. Chkdsk won't fix it.
Agreed. Usually, the corruption occurs due to a caching or hardware failure. Odds are chkdsk won't fix it - though considering it takes all of
3. Replace from my ERD, or the Repair folder.
#3. And how many users have current backups? If they had a backup, I wouldn't be called in.
Then set up automated backups for them. Regardless, the *.sav files are enough to get you booted with a clean OS. And the Repair folder will be newer than those.
4. Copy a software hive from another system.
#4. This only works if the systems are almost identical. I've tried this on the same hardware with only a few apps difference and it still wouldn't work. Over time, crap ends up in the hives. The crap from one user won't match the crap from another user. If you want to do this, you'd do better re-installing the OS and apps on a different drive and copying the clean hive over. Too much work.
Very little in the Software hive needs to be the same across systems to boot. Location of the Windows folder and possibly Program Files are about the only things I can think of that would be needed. Safe Mode would need even less.
Particularly when you compare it to Linux where I can boot a CD or floppy and fix any file on the hard drive including the boot files.
Ever heard of the Recovery Console, XP Repair process, BartPE, ERD Commander, BlueCon, etc? These are the Windows equivalents of Rescue Linux or Knoppix. Learn to use them.
While, with Windows, your only option is to have a current backup. Such a shame.
You're comparing getting a Linux machine to boot, versus getting a Windows machine to boot and save configuration settings of all your apps. Hardly apples to apples. If your *nix had a corrupt/etc directory, then I think we'd start to see a real comparison.
The useless crap can be removed, UNLESS you're talking about IE which is a problem because it is bolted to the OS which makes the security problems in IE operating system holes.
Useless, too, is a matter of opinion. And seeing as how ~90% of the market still uses IE, I'd say their opinion overwhelms yours. All OS's have dependencies. And, quite frankly, removing IE and keeping the Windows kernel is not difficult. It's keeping everything that's dependent on IE that's a problem - but I suppose that's why they're called dependencies. (What? *nix has those too? I never knew...)
The crashes can usually be mitigated by rebooting the system. Remember, Microsoft has issued a couple of service packs to deal with problems such as that. Until you get the service pack that fixes the crash bug you're experiencing, you don't have much in the way of options, do you?
If you're talking an OS crash...well, then, obviously. It's kind of hard to continue when the kernel has BSOD or a kernel panic. Almost all other crashes can be revived without rebooting. MS releases Service Packs to fix the crash (and add features), not the reboot.
What that actually means is that you've never triggered any of the crash bugs that Microsoft has admitted to.
If you don't use a sub-system that has a crash bug in it, is it because you know how to use Windows or because you are avoiding those bugs?
What it usually means is that those crash bugs are so esoteric and out of the mainstream that your chances of hitting one is about 1 in a billion. That's why they escaped MS's testing in the first place. ASP.NET 2.0 currently has 102,000 test cases testing 505,000 scenarios. And it's still in Beta 1 - and isn't a part of the OS. And will be given out for free.
The problem with Windows is that it isn't designed for easy diagnostics. It is easier to just reboot it than to actually find the problem.
Perhaps you don't find it easy to daignose problems. So, if you think it's easier, then go ahead and reboot. Some of us don't like to reboot Windows or *nix, so you can leave it to us to figure out how to do it without rebooting. Welcome to the world of choice...hope you enjoy your stay.
With Linux, the diagnostic process is easy.
Nice of you to back up that claim.
Go ahead. Show that I'm wrong. What would you do if you were getting a blue screen on startup with a message about the software hive?
1. Boot to the aptly named Last Known Good Confinguration.
2. Run Recovery Console chkdsk - since it's usually a corrupt file.
3. Replace from my ERD, or the Repair folder.
4. Copy a software hive from another system.
etc., etc.
And, of course, that's not a problem you reboot to cure. Unless Windows automagically replaces the corrupt file with the LKG copy. Which, come to think of it, I think it does. Yeah - in that case, rebooting is easier than step 1. OMG, MS saved me a keystroke!
If you're point was that the registry is a binary file and can't be fixed with a text editor...well, duh. So are a lot of files in *nix. And it's quite difficult to fix a corrupt text file with a text editor as well.
ummm, I was born via a c-section and was not breastfed (strikes 1 and 2 against developing a good immune system) and I have absolutely 0 allergies (pets or food) and have never had any sort of throat/lung problems (knock on wood), there goes the c-section theory.
Whew! Glad you clearedthat up for us, Marco. We were looking at doing some million-dollar studies to test our hypotheses that allergies and C-section deliveries were somehow correlated.
Thankfully, I read your Slashdot post just in time, however. Since you don't have allergies, I can definitely proclaim that there is no correlation between C-sections and allergies!
For anyone who would like to replicate my study, feel free to ask MarcoAtWork if he has developed any allergies. Thank you again, Marco, for saving me countless hours of time. Now I can go read some more Slashdot blather.
Sincerely,
Julie Louise Gerberding, MD, MPH
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Your job is also a tiny little part of the equation. And your job shouldn't be to stop us from doing our job.
You're right - my job is a tiny part of the equation. Of course, when it comes to ensuring the security of the network; the continuing operation of the network, servers, and desktops; enforcement of security and acceptable use policies; etc., then that's my part of the equation. Conversely, I don't expect you to take too seriously my advice on programming - that's not my field.
Working as a programmer in several software shops, where the software we sold *was* our income, I've seen your type. You keep us from getting our job done.
And your type* tries to keep me from getting my job done.
*I'm generalizing users who think that IT exists solely to serve them, and can't grasp the concept that the IT department should make IT related decisions - not the Marketing, Purchasing, or Software Development department.
Slashdot Mirror
In a twist of irony, Wikipedia will tell you that Lynx was never the "only web browser available". Brittanica, of course, will not tell you that Lynx (or ViolaWWW) ever existed.
My BS detector always goes red-hot on stories that blame a careless smoker for starting an inferno, because - despite having smoked for 15 years, I've yet to start even a small fire with a cigarette. If you throw a cigarette into gasoline, it goes out. If you throw it on some dry leaves, it goes out. If you throw it on cloth, it'll burn a hole...but then, it'll go out. If you throw it on some sawdust...well, I haven't tried that one - but I suspect it'd still go out. And since the building is covered in flame-retardant asbestos, I'd think it'd be even *harder* to light on fire. I concede that it is *possible* that a lit cigarette, combined with optimal environmental conditions, could start a fire. But to have 10 floors go up in flames certainly suggests that the structure itself (or something in it) was highly flammable to begin with.
A little Googling brings up the fact that "inspectors knew there was a blatant disregard for even the most basic fire-safety rules":
Oh, but "on the 6th floor N/W room 13 pallets of batteries and 19 drums. Many cigarette butts were found along with a Weber black small BBQ". Yeah, I can really see why "investigators theorize [that] a worker carelessly chucked a lit cigarette, igniting the blaze" (that started on the 17th floor). Surely it wouldn't have anything to do with the repeated fires they were starting from demolition, or the "burning activity" near gasoline, or even the indoor BBQ. Or, that both the inspectors' and the companies' ass would be on the line if they were found negligent for the fire - much easier to blame a nameless construction worker.
Before Latitude ON, there was Dell MediaDirect, a Windows XP Embedded partition that booted in about 10 seconds.
The only user focused difference between the 2 that I see, is that MediaDirect is/was positioned as a way to access your files - and Latitude ON is positioned as a way to access the Internet.
Technically, the whole "embed an ARM PC into an x86 PC" may be a better idea than the convoluted MBR and partitioning schemes MediaDirect employed - but it's certainly more expensive as well.
Then, as mentioned, there's Windows Sideshow, which even Dell is prototyping. SideShow is more ambitious than Latitude ON, encompassing everything from sinlge line text displays to show system stats, to ARM based Windows Mobile devices to check email, play media files, etc. So far, it's failed to gain much traction in the marketplace - but, I think that it's still too early to call it dead.
If you take a look at some of the prototype developments in the SideShow remote computer spaces, I think you'll agree that all the functionality of Latitude ON is there - it's just a seperate device instead of being housed in the same case as a laptop.
So - it's not like Microsoft isn't aware or working on this market, Dell and Co. just decided to go their own way. Big deal - happens all the time. While MediaDirect used XP Embedded, other manafacturers were using Linux based OS's. Wake me up in 2 or 3+ years when the market has settled down, and we can declare a winner.
Since nobody else seems to understand the difference between an electronic cash register and a PC based point of sale system - I'll throw in what little I know of ECRs.
DataSym makes a software product called Comm2000 that communicates with their ECRs. It can poll nightly to retrieve sales information, or you can have the register output the data on each sale. You can also maintain SKU lists, etc.
We have a few DataSym and older Sharp registers on the network (with a serial-TCP/IP device server), and the sales are captured in real time without going through Comm2000. Formats are a little obtuse, but reverse engineerable without documentation if you needed to.
Nightly, there's a fairly old version of Comm2000 that sends out SKU lists, register layouts, etc. The processing is held together with shell scripts and some custom C code, but I think Comm2000 is the standard EXE. This is all on a UNIX box, designed circa 1993, so YMMV.
Fortunately for me, but unfortunate for you, I have very little to do with the ECR side of things. But, I'd imagine most ECRs these days offer something similar, and I see DataSym still has Comm2000. Since ECRs don't really seem to be in the /. sweet spot, I'd suggest giving your local distributor a call.
I'd just like to point out that that's not a memory leak, that's by design. The objects *are* still referenced, *are* still reachable, *are* still callable (and, in fact, are called), so therefore should *not* be deleted. What's so hard to understand about that?
Nobody said Garbage Collection means you don't have to worry about memory (or that it can make up for broken code) - it just means you don't have to worry about *collecting* memory. Do you honestly think those Princeton guys would have had less bugs in C++?
Go to Google Trends, plug in your technology and its competitors. Drill down to your region and the last 12 months. If your technology doesn't show up, then you're riding a dead horse. eg., out of Fortran, Java, C#, Lisp, COBOL in Florida, Google Trends says only C# and Java are viable choices. For any who doubt the science behind this method, I offer the following trend graph as proof: Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Digg, DZone. This clearly shows that only Digg and Slashdot are viable choices.
Since it'll only happen on logon, any tech that I'd want working for me would deduce it's a profile problem. At that point, they can rebuild your profile (if they're nice) or just blow it out and you can drool over the MacBook for another year.
Check out the code, and compile using the new compilers or VS2005? Sure, you may have to code around the published breaking changes, but that's why it's a major version change. Or maybe you don't want to recompile - you just want to run against the new framework? Well, then, just target the new framework version - no source required. Of course, don't be surprised if one of the breaking changes bites you in the ass - that's why Side by Side execution is there. If you're having problems with it, work around it or file a bug.
Unless you use Microsoft's open/shared source MSBee, of course.
I don't think there's a formal system for directly contacting developers, but most of the higher profile development tools group maintain a team blog or have developers who blog on blogs.msdn.com, and of course there's always the Microsoft monitored newsgroups. There's also a legion of MVPs and Regional Directors, who - while not employed by Microsoft - often have knowledge and MS contacts way exceeding your own. These folks are usually very active in the community and are not hard to find.
As for reporting and commenting on bugs, that's what the Product Feedback Center is all about. And yes, Microsoft even comments on them. They tend to mark them as By Design or Won't Fix a little too often for my tastes, but that's their prerogative.
As for others "reliably support[ing] their products", I don't know what you think the legions of MCSEs and their like do all day - but I think it boils down to supporting Microsoft products.
And now that I've been informative and laid out all the information you need, I'd like to ask you how is it that you're able to so confidently assert these shortcomings of Microsoft when you apparently can't even use Google (or even MSN gets this one right) (try searching for ".NET breaking changes" and see what the first hit is - oh, looky - the breaking changes from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0) or even attempt to keep up? Is it the case that you are simply that ignorant of your own ignorance? Are you just a troll? Do you have such deep hated fear and loathing of Microsoft that it prevents you from being rational? Or do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you figure if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist?
I don't think Microsoft can be blamed for your ignorance - there are plenty of other .NET developers who know about this stuff, and we're not doing anything magical. It's called keeping up to date, reading, and researching - the price you pay for being a technology focused professional
Oh, I don't know...maybe from their developer division, in no particular order:
Yeah...that's about all the interesting stuff I can think of coming out of the developer division in the near to medium term. Note that I didn't state this stuff was any good (I haven't had the chance to toy with most of it yet), but I do think it's interesting and worth talking about.
Of course, their other divisions are no slouches either, so we also have (again, in no particular order):
Well, symbolic links are out (unless you want to link to a directory, then you can use junctions, but a hard link is available and should work.
Just because you don't know where to look doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I count roughly 500 IIS metabase settings - most of which can be set with the IIS Manager GUI, all of which can be scripted via WMI or ADSI, and that even come with supplied and supported scripts to modify them. Oh, and they're also XML, so fire up vi and edit away if you like.
There's also about 50 IIS registry settings that, while stored in the registry, are easy to get to for any Windows admin - both with a GUI and via script.
Oh, and for the record, Apache 2.2 looks to have 375 configuration directives.
Has the Bush administration actually invoked FISA as their legal basis? If so, I missed it. And, from what I've heard, it wouldn't fit. AFAIK, FISA requires either a warrant or only monitoring where no US person is likely to be involved (see Q18 in the EFF writeup).
Carter and Clinton both issued executive orders authorizing FISA monitoring, but specifically quoted FISA regulations to be followed. I haven't seen a similar order from Bush, and even according to legendary conservative Rush Limbaugh, the FISA courts were bypassed. Limbaugh's take on it was that the unprecedented denials and modifications of Bush's FISA requests forced him to go around the process.
In short, the President is not asserting legal authority under FISA. According to the Attorney General, his authority hinges (PDF) on his "inherent authority" as Commander-In-Chief, and Congress's Use of Force Resolution.
Of course, in my strict interpretation, I missed the part of the Presidential Oath, Constitution or the above resolution that grants him any power over surveillance. And, according to Daschle (partisan to be sure, but you'd think records of this kind of stuff would be easily checked), Congress specifically rejected the administration's request for having the resolution cover actions in the US.
Quest's Spotlight series are both functional and have a pretty snazzy UI. When I was demoing their Sql Server and Windows monitors, co-workers thought I was playing a game. All that eye candy is pretty taxing on processor usage, though - so you may need a dedicated box to pump it out in high res glory.
Yeah - that's much easier than just grabbing the Windows ports. Or Cygwin.
Not that I work for the CIA or anything, but I could come up with a few plausible reasons to use your own (maiden or otherwise) name undercover.
It's much easier to use a real name and have a verifiable (and easily known to you) backstory, than it would be to completely fictionalize 35+ years of your life and remember it - possibly under duress.. By comparison, it's pretty easy to omit key information from your true story - such as having been hired by the CIA.
Then, of course, there's the need to keep up appearances after the fact. Again, easier to use a real person that has a real verifiable life than to continue the charade of a fictional character indefinitely. Searching for a former business associate and coming up completely empty in the last 9 years might raise some concern.
Just out of curiousity, I wonder what sort of "difficulties" Novak thought she might encounter? Airport delays? Autograph seekers and paparazzi? It shouldn't take a mental genius to put (former) CIA spy + foreign gov't = bad news together and come to the conclusion that "difficulties" might be a euphemism for possible serious danger.
I've done some research into biometrics, and you're pretty much right on. Nobody that I'm aware of stores an actual fingerprint for biometric identification - except the police. They all store a hash based on some algorithms. Different companies have different algorithms - in fact, you have to license the alogrithm in order to use the software.
Also, unless you're the police or Big Brother, you don't just plop a thumb on a scanner and expect to be identified. Must biometrics use (at least) 2-factor authentication (what you have/know/are). There's a couple of reasons for this:
1. It's more secure than one of the common factors (have/know) alone.
2. It's incredibly expensive and error prone to do a many to many (n-to-n) match of biometric data. It's really only useful for a 1-to-n match (1 being the hash in the database, n being the number of fingers presented).
Of course, the police don't usually have the luxury of knowing who left the fingerprint at the murder scene, so they have to resort to an n-to-n lookup.
So, the usual routine is (a) present some sort of id card, give a name or id number, etc. and then (b) *verify* your identity with a biometric. Why not use pictures? Because people's appearance changes, and it can be quite difficult to tell 2 similar looking people apart. And, since this is a gym we're talking about, changing your appearance is probably a big goal of a majority of their customers.
Oh...and there's no indication where the data is being stored. It is quite possible, technically and dollar wise, to store absolutely no biometric information in a database. That's what smart cards are for. Present the card, the reader decrypts the biometrics (encrypted) stored on the card and compares with your scan. No biometric data is ever taken off the reader. Of course, it's also possible to store in a database. That allows for people who forgot/lost/destroyed their card to get in with their name/id number or get a new card without re-enrolling their biometrics (which is probably what the line was for).
I believe this is correct. A CAL (Client Access License) is not (necessarily) a Windows Client Access License. Any device or user (depending on your Windows licensing choice) needs a valid CAL to connect according to the MS license agreement. While the client may not have agreed to MS's EULA, whoever runs the Windows Server did.
Of course, this is why Samba has support for running an SMB server. Which makes it a (more or less) complete replacement for Microsoft's SMB implementation.
I always thought Penitrode was a reference to a Initrode being like a cubicle penitentiary.
The Bernoulli Principle. And I don't think computers crashing are going to affect it. This isn't the Matrix, after all.
Again. Nice of you to back up that claim. And, you're too ignorant to understand isn't going to cut it. I know that *nix is easier to diagnose in some areas, and Windows in either. By and large, however, it comes down to what you're most familiar with.
Then you probably haven't tried it enough, don't understand it, or haven't been around long enough.
Agreed. Usually, the corruption occurs due to a caching or hardware failure. Odds are chkdsk won't fix it - though considering it takes all of
Then set up automated backups for them. Regardless, the *.sav files are enough to get you booted with a clean OS. And the Repair folder will be newer than those.
Very little in the Software hive needs to be the same across systems to boot. Location of the Windows folder and possibly Program Files are about the only things I can think of that would be needed. Safe Mode would need even less.
Ever heard of the Recovery Console, XP Repair process, BartPE, ERD Commander, BlueCon, etc? These are the Windows equivalents of Rescue Linux or Knoppix. Learn to use them.
You're comparing getting a Linux machine to boot, versus getting a Windows machine to boot and save configuration settings of all your apps. Hardly apples to apples. If your *nix had a corrupt /etc directory, then I think we'd start to see a real comparison.
Whew! Glad you clearedthat up for us, Marco. We were looking at doing some million-dollar studies to test our hypotheses that allergies and C-section deliveries were somehow correlated.
Thankfully, I read your Slashdot post just in time, however. Since you don't have allergies, I can definitely proclaim that there is no correlation between C-sections and allergies!
For anyone who would like to replicate my study, feel free to ask MarcoAtWork if he has developed any allergies. Thank you again, Marco, for saving me countless hours of time. Now I can go read some more Slashdot blather.
Sincerely,
Julie Louise Gerberding, MD, MPH
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
You're right - my job is a tiny part of the equation. Of course, when it comes to ensuring the security of the network; the continuing operation of the network, servers, and desktops; enforcement of security and acceptable use policies; etc., then that's my part of the equation. Conversely, I don't expect you to take too seriously my advice on programming - that's not my field.
And your type* tries to keep me from getting my job done.
*I'm generalizing users who think that IT exists solely to serve them, and can't grasp the concept that the IT department should make IT related decisions - not the Marketing, Purchasing, or Software Development department.