No, it is not just a free development license. Yes, it does let you use it free for production use. You just have to "sign" the GoLive license.
The GoLive license for the beta does expire when the final version is released, and you will have to pay for the final version (if you wish to use it). Keep in mind that only Visual Studio costs money. You are free to run your production code (developed with BETA 2) on the freely downloadable runtime once the production version is released.
There was also a GoLive license for the BETA of the.NET Framework 1.0 about 4 years ago.
It is also worth stressing the fact that this is development software, for use by developers. It is not something anyone would expect Gramma to install.
Consider the fact that it has BETA in the name, and you have to agree to a special BETA Go Live license with the Microsoft products. Who is uninformed?
I was talking in generalities. Of course there are exceptions. I think the general consensus is that the older generation was disappointed in the new movies. It is great that you enjoyed them as much as the old ones. I guess that makes you the perfect target audience for Ep 3. While it is nice that you will be able to enjoy it, I still think its a shame that the younger generation won't be able to.
I think the largest demographic that enjoyed Ep 1 and 2 are under 13. I know my 7 year old nephew enjoyed them a lot more than I did.
The older generation (that enjoyed Ep 4-6 when they were 30 years younger) has been alienated by the new movies.
I was able to accept the new movies, knowing that they weren't meant for me, they were meant for the kids to enjoy, just like I enjoyed the others.
It is disappointing that the new generation that DID enjoy Ep 1 & 2, and eagerly await Ep 3, will not (or rather, should not) get to see it for a while.
Dell's success in the past has been based on this same strategy. Give the customers what they want, when they (the "collective they", not the "specific they") want it. That is what the direct model allows them to do, better than anyone. Let other companies create new products and convince customers they need them. If enough customers are convinced and come asking for a product, Dell will sell it. Being the "first mover" is not the advantage you think it is. Dell isn't the #1 seller of computers because they did it before IBM or HP, it is because they did it better.
Your last point is completely off topic. Developing a strategy for your product line has nothing to do with how you treat your employees.
Dell is not the single source of computers in the world. There is no mandate that they must offer any and every product under the sun. If they choose not to offer AMD, Cyrix, Motorola, or SpideyCTX86 chips, it is probably because their analysis shows that the investment would not be worth the reward. They are not morally obligated to entertain every potential part supplier's product. Choosing not to offer a product does not mean they are more likely to "screw their employees". In fact, I'd probably argue the opposite: if they tried to offer every product under the sun, they wouldn't be very successful for very long. What do you think THAT would do to their employees?
And when the customers add up enough to be significant, they will switch.
As important as it is to you to have AMD, it really isn't for the majority of their customers.
Why would Dell stick with a product, if they could be more successful with a different product? What exactly are you suggesting? Some sort of conspiracy? They're deliberately making less profit, just to annoy AMD? Notify the stockholders, bring a lawsuit.
Dell has been credited with pioneering some great business practices, but I think it is a stretch to credit them with "play competitors off of each other for your benefit".
Are you trying to imply there is something negative about this sound business practice?
When producing content, you should adhere strictly to the standards.
When interpreting/consuming content, you should do everything you can to handle it, if there is a reasonable interpretation.
Do you think ECC memory is a bad idea? Or parity bits in transmission protocols? If there is an error in transmission... if the value received is not exactly what you expected.. you should just shut down or ask for a resend every time? Even if there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the flawed data?
It is NOT at the discretion of the app developer. By default, you cannot execute.NET assemblies containing unsafe code if they are running from the network (as in the ActiveX example). That means it is the USER's discretion to allow that code to run (since they need to enable it through a policy configuration - it is NOT just a simple "this code may be unsafe, would you like to run?"
It may be fair to point out, but it is kinda silly without any context.
Java lets you write to the user's filesystem. Does that make it insecure? You could run a program to wipe out your hard drive!
But Java allows for a "sandbox". So does.NET. And if your code runs in that.NET "sandbox" (for example, if it is running from a network resource), it won't let you run unsafe code.
No, I do not see it as a problem, unless they charge for it. There has been no indication that they will charge for it except for the Slashdot FUD.
Is it a potential problem that open source software business plans are based on services and support - meaning they have a vested interest in keeping their applications difficult to use and fix? I'm not saying it is, but would you?
Woah. Is that attitude a representation of the linux community? That everything should be based on 7-bit ASCII from [insert ancient decade here]. Unicode has been around longer than linux, isn't it time to catch up?
Software isn't for programmers, it's for users. This is one concept that the Microsoft camp understands better than the Linux camp. Not trying to start a troll thread; both sides know their weaknesses.
"Excessive" internationalization may make your programming job more complex (though it can be eased by a nice set of libraries), but it will go a long way towards making your software actually "usable".
Ok, after reading the 5th post comparing RH to Win2K3 pricing, I had to respond...
What is scary is how quick people were to post links to Microsoft pricing and RedHat pricing - either they keep them on hand for such an occasion, or they actually did a little research for their post.
But if they were going to do research for their post, don't you think they would read the freaking article?
2nd paragraph: "Indeed, Red Hat's pricing was instrumental in Dell's decision to sign its October pact to sell Novell's SuSE Linux."
Microsoft was not mentioned at all. So, while everyone on Slashdot WANTS this to be an article about Dell being in Microsoft's pocket and part of the conspiracy to kill Linux, its really just about finding the vendor that will offer the best deal.
If you want Windows, Dell will sell you Windows. If you want Linux, Dell will sell you Linux. That has not changed.
Neither the post nor the article say anything about the Google tool being able to read files create by other "accounts" on the computer (it may be able to, but that is not what this article is about).
It is talking about multiple users/people using the same computer, under the same login account (it is a computer at a tradeshow booth), to access their web-based email. Of course Google doesn't integrate with Hotmail/Yahoo/etc to check credentials of who is searching.
This story might be interesting if the tool allows you to read files on a computer created by a different password-protected computer account. For example, I cannot read the files in someone else's My Documents folder on my computer (assuming I am not an Admin). If the Google Desktop Search allows this (by running with elevated priveleges), there may be a valid concern.
I understand your reaction, but you are misunderstanding the issue. Your post seems to implicate the application developers.
The URL based security is a built-in functionality of the framework. The framework handles all of the checking for you, so you don't have to do that checking yourself. If the framework works as advertised, the developer SHOULD NOT be doing these checks. That is the benefit (and problem) with working with a higher abstraction.
Unless you are doing these checks with machine code, you too are depending on some other pre-built library or compiler to do it correctly.
If the library or compiler (or framework) does it incorrectly, don't blame the application developer.
Apparently, their focus is REALLY small bands. I tried a list of bands that aren't exactly tearing up the Top 40 charts, and had no luck. Dinosaur Jr, Fugazi, Quicksand, Gorilla Biscuits.
I have a hard time believing Fugazi's "big label won't let their stuff be released with[out] DRM 'protection'".
The only band I found that I was interested in was The Pixies. And I think they are more well-known than the bands mentioned above, so I can't figure out the pattern.
Given that WMP10 apparently doesn't play any music ever sold online. Please, slow down with the FUD. From the article (that YOU linked):
However, Windows Media Player choked when I tried to synchronize some songs I had purchased in Microsoft's own format from the Musicmatch, Wal-Mart and Napster online stores, saying it was "unable to obtain license."
He was unable to get purchased songs from some stores to work on his device. That is not the same as WMP10 being unable to play them. He mentions that you have to download updated software from the stores themselves to be compatible with your device. When I launched WMP10 for the first time, it prompted me to download the update for MusicMatch (which may not have been available when Walt did his review), which I did without a problem.
iTunes is not just a store. The store uses a media player application, called iTunes, to purchase, as well as play, music. You can use iTunes (the application) to play your music files, without every purchasing music.
I don't think anyone was attempting to compare WMP10 the player with iTunes the store. This review compared WMP10 the media player, with iTunes the media player. He also mentioned that in a future article he would review the various stores that integrate with WMP10. I imagine at that point, it will be compared with iTunes, the store.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not just a free development license.
Yes, it does let you use it free for production use. You just have to "sign" the GoLive license.
The GoLive license for the beta does expire when the final version is released, and you will have to pay for the final version (if you wish to use it). Keep in mind that only Visual Studio costs money. You are free to run your production code (developed with BETA 2) on the freely downloadable runtime once the production version is released.
There was also a GoLive license for the BETA of the .NET Framework 1.0 about 4 years ago.
It is also worth stressing the fact that this is development software, for use by developers. It is not something anyone would expect Gramma to install.
Consider the fact that it has BETA in the name, and you have to agree to a special BETA Go Live license with the Microsoft products.
Who is uninformed?
Did you pay for them there Microsoft betas?
e fault.aspx
I sure didn't...
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/D
And if your database is so important that you don't want to run it on beta software, then... don't!
Heh, whoops. I was basing my facts on a free online encyclopedia that lets anyone edit the content. Someone should fix that.
You do realize that the inventor of the wiki works for Microsoft, right?
I was talking in generalities. Of course there are exceptions. I think the general consensus is that the older generation was disappointed in the new movies.
It is great that you enjoyed them as much as the old ones. I guess that makes you the perfect target audience for Ep 3.
While it is nice that you will be able to enjoy it, I still think its a shame that the younger generation won't be able to.
I know they are ABLE to see it, its more a matter of whether they SHOULD.
This is a shame.
I think the largest demographic that enjoyed Ep 1 and 2 are under 13. I know my 7 year old nephew enjoyed them a lot more than I did.
The older generation (that enjoyed Ep 4-6 when they were 30 years younger) has been alienated by the new movies.
I was able to accept the new movies, knowing that they weren't meant for me, they were meant for the kids to enjoy, just like I enjoyed the others.
It is disappointing that the new generation that DID enjoy Ep 1 & 2, and eagerly await Ep 3, will not (or rather, should not) get to see it for a while.
How well did that logic work for you after Episode I?
I hit the nail on the head AND I realized it ;)
And I disagree with your conclusion.
Dell's success in the past has been based on this same strategy. Give the customers what they want, when they (the "collective they", not the "specific they") want it. That is what the direct model allows them to do, better than anyone. Let other companies create new products and convince customers they need them. If enough customers are convinced and come asking for a product, Dell will sell it. Being the "first mover" is not the advantage you think it is. Dell isn't the #1 seller of computers because they did it before IBM or HP, it is because they did it better.
Your last point is completely off topic. Developing a strategy for your product line has nothing to do with how you treat your employees.
Dell is not the single source of computers in the world. There is no mandate that they must offer any and every product under the sun. If they choose not to offer AMD, Cyrix, Motorola, or SpideyCTX86 chips, it is probably because their analysis shows that the investment would not be worth the reward. They are not morally obligated to entertain every potential part supplier's product. Choosing not to offer a product does not mean they are more likely to "screw their employees". In fact, I'd probably argue the opposite: if they tried to offer every product under the sun, they wouldn't be very successful for very long. What do you think THAT would do to their employees?
And when the customers add up enough to be significant, they will switch.
As important as it is to you to have AMD, it really isn't for the majority of their customers.
Why would Dell stick with a product, if they could be more successful with a different product? What exactly are you suggesting? Some sort of conspiracy? They're deliberately making less profit, just to annoy AMD? Notify the stockholders, bring a lawsuit.
Dell has been credited with pioneering some great business practices, but I think it is a stretch to credit them with "play competitors off of each other for your benefit".
Are you trying to imply there is something negative about this sound business practice?
I think your statement is horrible to say.
When producing content, you should adhere strictly to the standards.
When interpreting/consuming content, you should do everything you can to handle it, if there is a reasonable interpretation.
Do you think ECC memory is a bad idea? Or parity bits in transmission protocols? If there is an error in transmission... if the value received is not exactly what you expected.. you should just shut down or ask for a resend every time? Even if there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the flawed data?
It is NOT at the discretion of the app developer. By default, you cannot execute .NET assemblies containing unsafe code if they are running from the network (as in the ActiveX example). That means it is the USER's discretion to allow that code to run (since they need to enable it through a policy configuration - it is NOT just a simple "this code may be unsafe, would you like to run?"
It may be fair to point out, but it is kinda silly without any context.
.NET. And if your code runs in that .NET "sandbox" (for example, if it is running from a network resource), it won't let you run unsafe code.
Java lets you write to the user's filesystem. Does that make it insecure? You could run a program to wipe out your hard drive!
But Java allows for a "sandbox". So does
No, I do not see it as a problem, unless they charge for it. There has been no indication that they will charge for it except for the Slashdot FUD.
Is it a potential problem that open source software business plans are based on services and support - meaning they have a vested interest in keeping their applications difficult to use and fix? I'm not saying it is, but would you?
It was just a couple days ago.
Is the flaw one of these?
Woah. Is that attitude a representation of the linux community? That everything should be based on 7-bit ASCII from [insert ancient decade here]. Unicode has been around longer than linux, isn't it time to catch up?
Software isn't for programmers, it's for users. This is one concept that the Microsoft camp understands better than the Linux camp. Not trying to start a troll thread; both sides know their weaknesses.
"Excessive" internationalization may make your programming job more complex (though it can be eased by a nice set of libraries), but it will go a long way towards making your software actually "usable".
Ok, after reading the 5th post comparing RH to Win2K3 pricing, I had to respond...
What is scary is how quick people were to post links to Microsoft pricing and RedHat pricing - either they keep them on hand for such an occasion, or they actually did a little research for their post.
But if they were going to do research for their post, don't you think they would read the freaking article?
2nd paragraph:
"Indeed, Red Hat's pricing was instrumental in Dell's decision to sign its October pact to sell Novell's SuSE Linux."
Microsoft was not mentioned at all. So, while everyone on Slashdot WANTS this to be an article about Dell being in Microsoft's pocket and part of the conspiracy to kill Linux, its really just about finding the vendor that will offer the best deal.
If you want Windows, Dell will sell you Windows. If you want Linux, Dell will sell you Linux. That has not changed.
Neither the post nor the article say anything about the Google tool being able to read files create by other "accounts" on the computer (it may be able to, but that is not what this article is about).
It is talking about multiple users/people using the same computer, under the same login account (it is a computer at a tradeshow booth), to access their web-based email. Of course Google doesn't integrate with Hotmail/Yahoo/etc to check credentials of who is searching.
This story might be interesting if the tool allows you to read files on a computer created by a different password-protected computer account. For example, I cannot read the files in someone else's My Documents folder on my computer (assuming I am not an Admin). If the Google Desktop Search allows this (by running with elevated priveleges), there may be a valid concern.
I understand your reaction, but you are misunderstanding the issue.
Your post seems to implicate the application developers.
The URL based security is a built-in functionality of the framework. The framework handles all of the checking for you, so you don't have to do that checking yourself. If the framework works as advertised, the developer SHOULD NOT be doing these checks. That is the benefit (and problem) with working with a higher abstraction.
Unless you are doing these checks with machine code, you too are depending on some other pre-built library or compiler to do it correctly.
If the library or compiler (or framework) does it incorrectly, don't blame the application developer.
Apparently, their focus is REALLY small bands.
I tried a list of bands that aren't exactly tearing up the Top 40 charts, and had no luck.
Dinosaur Jr, Fugazi, Quicksand, Gorilla Biscuits.
I have a hard time believing Fugazi's "big label won't let their stuff be released with[out] DRM 'protection'".
The only band I found that I was interested in was The Pixies. And I think they are more well-known than the bands mentioned above, so I can't figure out the pattern.
Please, slow down with the FUD.
From the article (that YOU linked):
He was unable to get purchased songs from some stores to work on his device. That is not the same as WMP10 being unable to play them. He mentions that you have to download updated software from the stores themselves to be compatible with your device. When I launched WMP10 for the first time, it prompted me to download the update for MusicMatch (which may not have been available when Walt did his review), which I did without a problem.
iTunes is not just a store. The store uses a media player application, called iTunes, to purchase, as well as play, music.
You can use iTunes (the application) to play your music files, without every purchasing music.
I don't think anyone was attempting to compare WMP10 the player with iTunes the store. This review compared WMP10 the media player, with iTunes the media player. He also mentioned that in a future article he would review the various stores that integrate with WMP10. I imagine at that point, it will be compared with iTunes, the store.