But no, you'd rather prattle on about how Intellectual Property - MY property - hurts everyone, is bad for humanity, blah blah blah, while you keep on stealing. Now there is a morally correct ideal.
I don't steal other people's "intellectual property". I buy all my music, on CD. I buy all my books, on paper. All the software I run is free software, mostly GPL. Fuck you and your assumptions.
Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
I can see why. If you had posted under your own name, that baseless, ill-conceived rant would come back to haunt you.
Everyone knows who I am and that it's me telling you (whoever you are) to go fuck yourself.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
This is the kind of story that I like to see. Just when we think there is nothing new to know and that unsolved equals unsolvable, someone cracks an enigma like this and shows that a new perspective is often the only thing required to make significant breakthroughs.
It's worth pointing out that Commodore did not invent that Amiga; they bought the Amiga company, which almost completely developed the Amiga 1000. Lorraine (the prototype) was done by the time C= got on the scene.
It was at Amiga, and not at Commodore, that the phrase "Guru Meditation" was born. Commodore later elided the phrase from KickStart (version 2.00, I believe).
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Slashdot community that I have the following patents pending:
* Use of special character sequences to delimit human-readable text from program code. The following sequences are covered by the patent:/*... */, REM... ,//... , --... , (*... *), {... }, "... ".
* Use of right angles to attach lines together, creating formations technically known as "rectangles"; also covers use of "rectangles" to delineate spaces in such technologies as window systems, newspapers and banner ads.
* Use of "patents" to restrict the rights of programmers to use the best and most obvious techniques to "get the job done".
Licensing and royalty details will be forthcoming.
Well, if you want anti-aliased fonts under X, you can use something like GNOME's Canvas to draw using anti-aliasing.
It's worth pointing out that they way MS has anti-aliased fonts in Windows is totally wrong. What's the point of anti-aliasing a 72-point font? It's small fonts that have the most to gain from anti-aliasing. For an example, look at how Acorn's RISC OS implemented anti-aliased fonts: they applied it to small ones, making it perfectly possible to edit 10-point Times on a 640x256 screen.
Furthermore, I don't believe that anti-aliasing is much use, except for intricate fonts such as Zapf Chancery. I use Verdana and xfsft for pretty much everything. Verdana is wonderfully readable down to about 9 points on my 1152x896 display, mainly because of the hinting logic that is in most Truetype fonts, as opposed to Type1 fonts, which have to rely on the generic hinting logic in the rasteriser.
Anti-aliased fonts are more of a "tick-box" feature than a real advance.
Edit-and-continue is indeed a feature of VC++ 6.0, but it does its magic by including empty space in the executable and using this space to patch the.EXE. (See patch space in the Jargon File.) Hence, it's precisely equivalent to VB, where its edit-and-continue comes as a virtue of it being an interpereted language; not only that, but edit-and-continute is not going an option for a release build. I find that gcc's "-O2 -g" gives a reasonable compromise for testing new code.
Edit-and-continue is all very well, but in my experience with VB (admittedly not extensive) in about 50-70% of cases where I make a change to a running program, it needed to be restarted. The kinds of errors you tend to make will dictate how useful edit-and-continue is to you. For instance, if you alter a template definition, it's likely that a rebuild will be needed.
As for me, I tend to build about once an hour or so when I am writing and debugging extensively. Otherwise, I try to write the entire class or module and understand that it is correct before I build it.
Excuse me if this is slightly confused; I'm a tad tired.
Well, I just sent this to McAfee on their feedback form after I read their BO2K page (http://www.mcafee.com/viruses/bo2000/what_bo2k_do es.asp):
--BEGIN--
In a number of places on your page about BO2K, you refer to it as a "virus" and a "trojan".
BO2K is neither of these. Virus spread themselves; BO2K does not. Torjan horses pretend to be something they are not; BO2K does not.
Back Orifice 2000's website (http://www.bo2k.com) makes no bones about what it is: it is a remote administration program. It hides from the taklist to stop clueless users from removing it, and then only on 95/98. On NT, it is visible in the task list running as a service.
You refer to the original Back Orifice being "discovered" on October 15 1998... The software was announced with a press release on July 21 1998. Where's the discovery in that?
Back Orifice 2000 is a tool that allows the installer to control a machine remotely. It is no different in function from pcAnywhere or other such tools. As a side effect, it demonstrates the woeful security present in Microsoft's operating systems.
Personally, I find your characterisation of BackOrifice 2000 offensive and sensationalistic. Sensationalising the possible effects of the tool is one thing, but sensationalising its essential nature is another thing entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! You can see the future!
Maybe you can tell us when we'll be getting our flying cars and personal robots.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I don't steal other people's "intellectual property". I buy all my music, on CD. I buy all my books, on paper. All the software I run is free software, mostly GPL. Fuck you and your assumptions.
I can see why. If you had posted under your own name, that baseless, ill-conceived rant would come back to haunt you.
Everyone knows who I am and that it's me telling you (whoever you are) to go fuck yourself.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
This is the kind of story that I like to see. Just when we think there is nothing new to know and that unsolved equals unsolvable, someone cracks an enigma like this and shows that a new perspective is often the only thing required to make significant breakthroughs.
Select the tail of the URL, delete it, and hit RET.
It's worth pointing out that Commodore did not invent that Amiga; they bought the Amiga company, which almost completely developed the Amiga 1000. Lorraine (the prototype) was done by the time C= got on the scene.
It was at Amiga, and not at Commodore, that the phrase "Guru Meditation" was born. Commodore later elided the phrase from KickStart (version 2.00, I believe).
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Slashdot community that I have the following patents pending:
/* ... */, REM ... , // ... , -- ... , (* ... *), { ... }, " ... ".
* Use of special character sequences to delimit human-readable text from program code. The following sequences are covered by the patent:
* Use of right angles to attach lines together, creating formations technically known as "rectangles"; also covers use of "rectangles" to delineate spaces in such technologies as window systems, newspapers and banner ads.
* Use of "patents" to restrict the rights of programmers to use the best and most obvious techniques to "get the job done".
Licensing and royalty details will be forthcoming.
Thank you.
On the one hand, we have pundits, analysts and experts.
On the other hand, we have yarrow sticks, crystal balls and tea leaves.
I know which I would place more trust in.
Throw out all your computers and buy a pig farm.
Microsoft invented COM. DEC (co?)invented DCE RPC, which Distributed COM (DCOM) uses as its wire protocol (with a couple of changes).
> mozilla is crossplatform which means it is definately not based on COM
Mozilla uses its own implementation of COM, called XPCOM. They are very similar.
> MS did not invent COM
I'm afraid they did. COM specifies a standard layout for vtables, GUIDs, etc to allow components to interoperate.
> COM is not evil.
True. What is evil is wrapping crap code in a COM interface and calling it good.
I should have said, "pretty much every program that runs on Linux".
I've looked at the MFC code. That has plenty of hacks. Many MSJ articles say the same. I don't think it unreasonable of me to extrapolate.
At least with Mozilla, Linux and pretty much every other program in Linux, the source is out there for the great unwashed to look at and evaluate.
I did say "rant", you know.
Is there any hard evidence to show that IE 5.5 or 6.0 will be more featureful than Mozilla 5?
It's worth noting that IE is no longer in a frantic development mode, since it has performed its function, which was to grab the "market".
In Microsoft, respect is gained by getting stuff out the door, not by taking the time to do it properly.
Internet Explorer is not done properly. Standard support is poor, and undoubtedly the code implementing it is shoddy.
Security in IE has repeatedly been shown to be badly broken, and almost certainly not an integral part of the design.
The idea that digital signatures can protect a user from malicious code is ludicrous.
WRONG!
It is becoming clear that "Transmeta" is a big, big joke on the lot of us.
I would like to thank everyone involved in the prank for all the entertainment they have given us over the past few months.
Getting Linus involved was a masterstroke.
Thanks again, guys.
I don't like Revelation at all. If Bowie isn't doing the tiles anymore, this is the end of Propaganda for me.
RESIST!
RESIST!
Well, if you want anti-aliased fonts under X, you can use something like GNOME's Canvas to draw using anti-aliasing.
It's worth pointing out that they way MS has anti-aliased fonts in Windows is totally wrong. What's the point of anti-aliasing a 72-point font? It's small fonts that have the most to gain from anti-aliasing. For an example, look at how Acorn's RISC OS implemented anti-aliased fonts: they applied it to small ones, making it perfectly possible to edit 10-point Times on a 640x256 screen.
Furthermore, I don't believe that anti-aliasing is much use, except for intricate fonts such as Zapf Chancery. I use Verdana and xfsft for pretty much everything. Verdana is wonderfully readable down to about 9 points on my 1152x896 display, mainly because of the hinting logic that is in most Truetype fonts, as opposed to Type1 fonts, which have to rely on the generic hinting logic in the rasteriser.
Anti-aliased fonts are more of a "tick-box" feature than a real advance.
Paul.
I read this somewhere last week. Can't remember where. Why so slow? :-)
Paul
Edit-and-continue is indeed a feature of VC++ 6.0, but it does its magic by including empty space in the executable and using this space to patch the .EXE. (See patch space in the Jargon File.) Hence, it's precisely equivalent to VB, where its edit-and-continue comes as a virtue of it being an interpereted language; not only that, but edit-and-continute is not going an option for a release build. I find that gcc's "-O2 -g" gives a reasonable compromise for testing new code.
Edit-and-continue is all very well, but in my experience with VB (admittedly not extensive) in about 50-70% of cases where I make a change to a running program, it needed to be restarted. The kinds of errors you tend to make will dictate how useful edit-and-continue is to you. For instance, if you alter a template definition, it's likely that a rebuild will be needed.
As for me, I tend to build about once an hour or so when I am writing and debugging extensively. Otherwise, I try to write the entire class or module and understand that it is correct before I build it.
Excuse me if this is slightly confused; I'm a tad tired.
Paul.
As far as I know, the previous Compaq honcho's name was Eckhard Pfeiffer, not Piffer.
Peace, brothas.
Paul.
Well, I just sent this to McAfee on their feedback form after I read their BO2K page (http://www.mcafee.com/viruses/bo2000/what_bo2k_do es.asp):
;-)
--BEGIN--
In a number of places on your page about BO2K, you refer to it as a "virus" and a "trojan".
BO2K is neither of these. Virus spread themselves; BO2K does not. Torjan horses pretend to be something they are not; BO2K does not.
Back Orifice 2000's website (http://www.bo2k.com) makes no bones about what it is: it is a remote administration program. It hides from the taklist to stop clueless users from removing it, and then only on 95/98. On NT, it is visible in the task list running as a service.
You refer to the original Back Orifice being "discovered" on October 15 1998... The software was announced with a press release on July 21 1998. Where's the discovery in that?
Back Orifice 2000 is a tool that allows the installer to control a machine remotely. It is no different in function from pcAnywhere or other such tools. As a side effect, it demonstrates the woeful security present in Microsoft's operating systems.
Personally, I find your characterisation of BackOrifice 2000 offensive and sensationalistic. Sensationalising the possible effects of the tool is one thing, but sensationalising its essential nature is another thing entirely.
Yours,
Paul Collins.
--END--
Yes, I have seen the typos
------------p!
I was struck by the 10:37 thing too. I felt it was quite freakish. Terrifyingly, the reading on JFK's plane's compass was 10 degrees 37 minutes...
This is getting scary.
Paul