Can't because someone at the top says you can't or can't because your apps are too dependant on XP? I guess I'm asking if it's a technical issue or a bureaucratic issue.
Most small businesses do not have the time and resources to go through this process on a frequent basis.
I store all my non-temporary data on a server PC anyway, so this is an ideal solution. One that should work in any enterprise environment as well (assuming that there are only 3-4 different builds).
That's good, but "good" malware will transfer themselves to your servers. First, if malware isn't noticed for a while (e.g. if it turns itself on a week later) you'll copy it yourself to your servers. Second, if your servers are always online for data retrieval, they can copy themselves over there. There is no panacea no matter how hard you try.
Does anyone know how many patents google has? And how many patent applications they've filed? How many are hardware and how many software? I tried googling for it and (ironically?) found no answers.
We know how many patents Microsoft has and that they apply for an average of 10 per week (at last count). So I'm curious how Google compares.
Any organization that applies for more than 1,000 patents in the previous year should be charged $100,000 per application. If they're going to bogg down the system they need to pay for it. That should at least slow them down a little while we wait for our congress to make software patents illegal (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).
That's funny, I think the exact opposite for the same reason. The business market is more than willing to fork over the cash for the desktop apps. Many working stiffs would be unhappy if they can't use a word processor during their morning train ride commute. Home users, however, are almost always connected to the internet and would gladly buy a computer without the price of office apps added.
Microsoft has a long history of manipulating hardware manufacturers. They effectively control what Dell and others put in their computers. They are control freaks and will not be satisfied with a manufacturer they can't influence, such as Apple.
But, conversely, how can one claim to believe in something if they don't follow it through to its logical conclusions? What if 100 years from now the concept of intellectual property is long gone and considered archaic. We'd consider RMS's statement logical.
RMS considers the concept of intellectual property immoral. Therefore "freeing" code is a perfectly appropriate action (to him). I'd rather see people stand by their beliefs than bend for practical reasons.
100 guaranteed episodes? To me that implies they're extremely confident it will be successful. Unless Lucas is thinking if it fails on TV he can sell it on DVD and make his money back.
God have mercy on your soul if you try to do anything non-standard with a Datagrid, because asp.net won't...
I found that to be the case with anything not in Microsoft's anemic samples. It seems if you don't fit into the specific profiles Microsoft planned for you're in for a hell of a time. The fact there are so many web pages about how to get around.NET's limitations is testament to that fact.
I just noticed we have god, hell, and testament all in one post, yet the post is about.NET. I don't know what that means but it scares me.
Re:Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Internet Explorer..
on
Microsoft Releases Atlas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The official website, just like Microsoft's regular website, is full of meaningless rhetoric. I can write complete crap HTML that works in every browser. That definitely doesn't make it good. And less code than "classic" ASP, PHP, or JSP? Not once when I worked with ASP.NET for 2 years did I find reduction of code compared to other options. Maybe there are some cases I didn't see, but a blanket statement like that is just wrong.
The only people who back up this rhetoric are Microsoft employees on their blogs and those who haven't tried any alternatives.
Last time I used it.NET gave 2 output options: Netscape 4.0 compatible HTML or IE-specific HTML. There was no full support for XHTML or HTML 4. That counts as working in all browsers. But the ASP.NET output I've investigated is far from the best.
There's a lot of quality checks on adsense clicks. You're right that google barely seems to care what pages display their ads. But google is big on checking the quality of click-throughs. Why should they care their ads show on bad sites? As long as the clicks are legal they're making good money on it.
Is this becoming a threat to "traditional" web development companies like the one I work for? Will Google be eating up development work for some of the larger sites?
This is America! We don't care about your precious metric system! As Grampa Simpson says, "The metric system is the tool of the devil. My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"/end_sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is a Windows XP machine not a PC? XP can't (legally) be used as a server.
Can't because someone at the top says you can't or can't because your apps are too dependant on XP? I guess I'm asking if it's a technical issue or a bureaucratic issue.
Most small businesses do not have the time and resources to go through this process on a frequent basis.
I store all my non-temporary data on a server PC anyway, so this is an ideal solution. One that should work in any enterprise environment as well (assuming that there are only 3-4 different builds).
That's good, but "good" malware will transfer themselves to your servers. First, if malware isn't noticed for a while (e.g. if it turns itself on a week later) you'll copy it yourself to your servers. Second, if your servers are always online for data retrieval, they can copy themselves over there. There is no panacea no matter how hard you try.
It's time to wrap my umbrella in tinfoil and use it every day. At least it's more comfortable than the tinfoil hat.
But they're allowed to throw chairs, right?
Wow, if that's accurate that's just a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft's 5,000.
Does anyone know how many patents google has? And how many patent applications they've filed? How many are hardware and how many software? I tried googling for it and (ironically?) found no answers.
We know how many patents Microsoft has and that they apply for an average of 10 per week (at last count). So I'm curious how Google compares.
Any organization that applies for more than 1,000 patents in the previous year should be charged $100,000 per application. If they're going to bogg down the system they need to pay for it. That should at least slow them down a little while we wait for our congress to make software patents illegal (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).
Personally I think it should be a little more... webish.
And can we get those icons in cornflower blue?
That's funny, I think the exact opposite for the same reason. The business market is more than willing to fork over the cash for the desktop apps. Many working stiffs would be unhappy if they can't use a word processor during their morning train ride commute. Home users, however, are almost always connected to the internet and would gladly buy a computer without the price of office apps added.
Microsoft has a long history of manipulating hardware manufacturers. They effectively control what Dell and others put in their computers. They are control freaks and will not be satisfied with a manufacturer they can't influence, such as Apple.
yet another reason to not dismiss windows-on-mac-hardware efforts.
Has anyone confirmed the process is not against the Microsoft Windows EULA? If it's not in there today I can image a new paragraph in the near future.
But, conversely, how can one claim to believe in something if they don't follow it through to its logical conclusions? What if 100 years from now the concept of intellectual property is long gone and considered archaic. We'd consider RMS's statement logical.
RMS considers the concept of intellectual property immoral. Therefore "freeing" code is a perfectly appropriate action (to him). I'd rather see people stand by their beliefs than bend for practical reasons.
IE was integrated because... it made sense to integrate the same technology in order to save on system resources.
Since when has Microsoft cared about saving system resources? There are thousands of other things they could do to save far more resources.
100 guaranteed episodes? To me that implies they're extremely confident it will be successful. Unless Lucas is thinking if it fails on TV he can sell it on DVD and make his money back.
God have mercy on your soul if you try to do anything non-standard with a Datagrid, because asp.net won't...
.NET's limitations is testament to that fact.
.NET. I don't know what that means but it scares me.
I found that to be the case with anything not in Microsoft's anemic samples. It seems if you don't fit into the specific profiles Microsoft planned for you're in for a hell of a time. The fact there are so many web pages about how to get around
I just noticed we have god, hell, and testament all in one post, yet the post is about
The official website, just like Microsoft's regular website, is full of meaningless rhetoric. I can write complete crap HTML that works in every browser. That definitely doesn't make it good. And less code than "classic" ASP, PHP, or JSP? Not once when I worked with ASP.NET for 2 years did I find reduction of code compared to other options. Maybe there are some cases I didn't see, but a blanket statement like that is just wrong.
The only people who back up this rhetoric are Microsoft employees on their blogs and those who haven't tried any alternatives.
Last time I used it .NET gave 2 output options: Netscape 4.0 compatible HTML or IE-specific HTML. There was no full support for XHTML or HTML 4. That counts as working in all browsers. But the ASP.NET output I've investigated is far from the best.
Wow... At some point Google must consider that URL keyword stuffing and hurt pagerank. Yahoo and MSN, however, seem to love keyword spamming.
There's a lot of quality checks on adsense clicks. You're right that google barely seems to care what pages display their ads. But google is big on checking the quality of click-throughs. Why should they care their ads show on bad sites? As long as the clicks are legal they're making good money on it.
I absolutely agree. The point of the example, I believe, isn't that it's minimalistic. It's downright ugly.
Man, that URL is really ugly. I'm going to click elsewhere to avoid it.
When many people come to an ugly page they click somewhere just to get away from it.
Personally I hit the back button, but I guess that's just me.
Google provides the technical expertise.
Is this becoming a threat to "traditional" web development companies like the one I work for? Will Google be eating up development work for some of the larger sites?
This is America! We don't care about your precious metric system! As Grampa Simpson says, "The metric system is the tool of the devil. My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!" /end_sarcasm