And if you're on Windows, you can use RDP, which is higher performance than VNC (at least Microsoft's implementation for Windows) but platform specific. (I assume it hooks more deeply into Windows-specific painting API's to eliminate redundant traffic better than even a compressed VNC connection)
Having said that, there are RDP clients for other operating systems too (like Linux, OS X), and also RDP servers like xrdp and Aqua Connect.
And then WoW blew up, and they decided to try and be WoW, even though the game had been pretty much designed to be NOT WoW, at which point the whole thing caught fire imploded and shit itself into a grotesque mockery of life.
Because WoW, as we all know, is a perfect imitation of life! Mmmm...
The BBC reports that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says this is a 'necessity'.
Looking at the devastating acts of terror done to the city of Manchester in April 27 last year, and the continued threats to Edinburgh these weeks with potential bomb raids by the agressor, this is absolutely necessary. No, wait... What?
You can also run a blocking proxy, and have the same filters apply to all browsers. Not even needing adblock on FF. Good for those interested in more than FF at least.
I've been waiting for several months for an updated product line from Apple, so it's at least news to me. OS X has an even larger market share than Linux on the desktop, and we damn sure read about every little Ubuntu release here... I don't really see the problem. Apple is getting bigger too, not smaller.
Re:Sorry, Loebner Has Done Nothing for AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 1
You may consider your dog highly intelligent, but I'm not likely to want to call it up and ask for advice on any given issue, am I?
One step at a time here though. I'd still prefer a dog compared to anything we have now. At least you can teach a dog to get your newspaper in the morning. We aren't even pushing into that field strongly yet with computers.
OK, silly me picking SQLite as an example when SQL CE is free as well (there were another reason we picked that too -- we needed a cleaner C++ interface). But we still never require SQL Server on the desktop for that reason. We communicate with ODBC connections wherever needed, as for the desktop.
We then turn around and sell them to customers. Customers love the price, but then later realize that they must buy a server to run in on, a copy of Windows, a server to run SQL on, a copy of Microsoft SQL Server, licenses, licenses to allow 'anonymous' internet connections, copies of Microsoft Office 2007 to be able to read the reports it spits out in Word 2007 format, etc...
I develop for e.g. mobile devices and use SQLite with phxsoftware's excellent.NET backend, instead of SQL Server Compact Edition. And we don't output formats that require the latest MS Office release. Are we really that special, that does this as a service to our customers and lower the barrier of entry? For reports, you don't even have to us MS Office on Windows. I don't even think it's the best choice. There are a number third party controls for the job out there, that don't require the license cost of the entire Office 2007.
But I'll agree it has nothing to do with a new language being introduced.
And they'll most likely even have different teams allocated for the languages. Microsoft is big after all. Just like which route they take with C# doesn't have to affect what they do with their native C++ or VB.NET support.
I really like mono - the work that has been done is nothing short of amazing but the constant catch-up with Microsoft is a concern.
If it's about Java vs Mono, remember that catching up is only a concern if the condition of Java offering features the latest version of.NET also do, but not Mono.
Just saying that it's easy to fall into the trap of feeling the situation being "inadequate" if having to catch up with Microsoft's latest features, even if you don't need them.
Personally, I think Mono 2.0 is a quite amazing feat, and.NET 2.0 support is great. We're developing for.NET 2.0 ourselves, and the.NET 3.0 API classes aren't overly interesting, as they're such behemoths to learn and adapt to thoroughly (a WPF UI has no relationship whatsoever to a WinForms UI, for example -- good luck in porting, etc, etc), and also the added.NET redistributable size.
But still, yeah, Java is also very good to develop for in comparison. I'd say that if your focus is Windows (and/or Windows Mobile), go for.NET -- you'll now as a bonus have Mono 2.0 to greatly ease the pains of porting if you stay away from those evil native code Windows libraries, and Visual Studio /.NET will most likely offer a better experience on Windows than Java.
But on the other hand, if you see yourself just as likely developing for Linux or OS X as Windows, Java could still be a better idea.
True, but a company installing their apps on a multitude of machines for a customer's mixed environment, will probably don't want to mess around with customized packages from that site that are tailored for x86, x64, etc.
From the site:
Why would you EVER want to download the whole archive? Only if you're a developer and you want to distribute the.NET Framework the widest possible audience in a format like a CD or DVD.
Well, that's probably exactly what a developer wants to do. Have their app run on the full supported range of hardware, as supported by.NET. Heck,.NET isn't even cross-platform (this site isn't redistributing Mono), so there are already constraints here.
So of course there are good reasons to use the full 200 MB package -- it's to not have to care for what the customer uses. You'd feel pretty stupid if you went to install some software and noticed your customized.NET package didn't contain support for the ia64 architecture.;-)
Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0?
Agreed about this, as I said above..NET 2.0 was a major step forward with the generics libraries and much more, but.NET 3.0 is about Windows Presentation Foundation (vector graphics-based and hardware accelerated UI support) and Windows Communications Foundation (an abstraction of various.NET comms libraries so the developer don't need to develop for specific protocols). These are actually some quite good ideas by MS IMHO, but still, it's quite some beasts with their notable footprints for the redistributable packages (the.NET 3.5 Redist is... 200 Fucking Megabytes in its offline installer), and also with little existing "killer apps" written for those libraries that attracts developer attention in the industry.
Basically, people think "Why learn WPF to develop cool vector graphics-based user interfaces when it's an entirely new API to learn and it will as a result not follow Microsoft's own UI guidelines?"
And IMHO, they're completely right in questioning that. Especially with said runtime.:-S
I'm aware Microsoft offers "online installers", but there's always a risk in relying on network connectivity and Microsoft's servers being up and running (and being fast at the moment for a hassle-free installation experience). Microsoft is also working on a special feature in the latest service pack IIRC to "bootstrap" the.NET 3.5 Framework, but this is bleeding edge stuff that I'm uncertain of how much application performance will suffer from it (on-demand downloading of.NET components as they're needed).
Having said that, by the way, I'm developing software partially for.NET and partially for Win32/C++, and we use to target the.NET 2.0 Framework because.NET 3.0+ uses a 100+ MB large redistributable for things like the WPF vector graphics interface with no good standardized widget set. Looking at the.NET software market elsewhere, we don't seem to be alone. Actually, we seem to be the norm.
Without the support of features in.Net 3.5, very few people are going to choose it for new developments.
Do you really think so?
Mono 2.0 has a C# 3.0 compiler (i.e. the same feature set as the one shipping with.NET 3.5).
As for the.NET framework itself, compiler aside,.NET 3.5 is basically about WPF/WCF/WF -- can you really count to, say, three high profile emerging apps making use of these libraries?
It can only update every couple of minutes? Not to worry, Lucas will stretch out Episode XXIV accordingly.
And don't forget about the Episode I remake. It may actually be more watchable that round, giving us time to mentally recover between the frames of Jar-Jar.
Compare and contrast this with the Chinese Program. This program exists to control the thoughts of the Chinese people. It censors them and prevents the flow of information. Then it reports on them simply because they are talking about things which in the United States are completely legal to talk about but in China are completely illegal to talk about. China has no freedom of speech. Their every move is watched to control them online. They aren't trying to track terrorists here. They are trying to play mind control. They are trying to censor the publics thoughts.
Is it "thoughts" when it's about China and not when it's about the USA? Why are you using such a strong words as "thoughts", when it's really about what they say?
But yeah, there is a difference in what kind of activities the two governments want to stop. In both governments, that definition is up to the government though, and they are no longer always obviously serving the people. "Terrorists" sounds all good and well, but there have been so many news about strange definitions of that.
Why is that reply considered flamebait? Isn't that how it is, really? Recent debates in Sweden is at least about new signal analysis laws for all internationall computer traffic passing our borders. Much worse than just internet telephony alone, even.
Define "enough variations"? What do you think is reasonable? A spammer network can build quite a database of images vs how many images a company is willing to hold. I'd dare say a bot network with all their hard drives have the edge here compared to a company's financing set aside for their anti-spam solution. Not only because of a bot networks potential scalability, but because due to the illegality of it all, a spammer doesn't finance the cost of setting it up -- his victims do.
Besides, it's not like you can challenge any extra charges on your credit card.:-p
Sure, that would be a nuisance, but if Google purhcases at all led to leaked card numbers and this at all took place on some scale, it would very fast bite Google and ruin their reputation in a way I don't think they'd be willing to take.
Re:amazing what doesnt get asked
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 1
Well there is fragmentation produces as they introduce YET another language.
Meh.. As for Windows development, I think.NET did a lot of good things. Most importantly, made a.NET developer easily understand and switch between C#, VB.NET or heck even something else.NET based that would come up later. The difficulty in a new language lies usually not in the syntax, but in learning the API..NET was a great gift for the Windows developers in that regard. No more.. "Uhmm, MFC if you do C++ or VB6 if you want VB"... As for Microsoft's offerings. Eek. Things were *ugly* in the past. And hell of a lot more fragmented.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you're on Windows, you can use RDP, which is higher performance than VNC (at least Microsoft's implementation for Windows) but platform specific. (I assume it hooks more deeply into Windows-specific painting API's to eliminate redundant traffic better than even a compressed VNC connection)
Having said that, there are RDP clients for other operating systems too (like Linux, OS X), and also RDP servers like xrdp and Aqua Connect.
And then WoW blew up, and they decided to try and be WoW, even though the game had been pretty much designed to be NOT WoW, at which point the whole thing caught fire imploded and shit itself into a grotesque mockery of life.
Because WoW, as we all know, is a perfect imitation of life! Mmmm...
The BBC reports that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says this is a 'necessity'.
Looking at the devastating acts of terror done to the city of Manchester in April 27 last year, and the continued threats to Edinburgh these weeks with potential bomb raids by the agressor, this is absolutely necessary. No, wait... What?
You can also run a blocking proxy, and have the same filters apply to all browsers. Not even needing adblock on FF. Good for those interested in more than FF at least.
This is a website primarily for free software and GNU/Linux news though.
The Linux section is for that, with the major stuff "leaking" into main, yes. I agree.
So rumors are suddenly not welcome on Slashdot? Wow, that's a first!
I've been waiting for several months for an updated product line from Apple, so it's at least news to me. OS X has an even larger market share than Linux on the desktop, and we damn sure read about every little Ubuntu release here... I don't really see the problem. Apple is getting bigger too, not smaller.
You may consider your dog highly intelligent, but I'm not likely to want to call it up and ask for advice on any given issue, am I?
One step at a time here though. I'd still prefer a dog compared to anything we have now. At least you can teach a dog to get your newspaper in the morning. We aren't even pushing into that field strongly yet with computers.
OK, silly me picking SQLite as an example when SQL CE is free as well (there were another reason we picked that too -- we needed a cleaner C++ interface). But we still never require SQL Server on the desktop for that reason. We communicate with ODBC connections wherever needed, as for the desktop.
We then turn around and sell them to customers. Customers love the price, but then later realize that they must buy a server to run in on, a copy of Windows, a server to run SQL on, a copy of Microsoft SQL Server, licenses, licenses to allow 'anonymous' internet connections, copies of Microsoft Office 2007 to be able to read the reports it spits out in Word 2007 format, etc...
I develop for e.g. mobile devices and use SQLite with phxsoftware's excellent .NET backend, instead of SQL Server Compact Edition. And we don't output formats that require the latest MS Office release. Are we really that special, that does this as a service to our customers and lower the barrier of entry? For reports, you don't even have to us MS Office on Windows. I don't even think it's the best choice. There are a number third party controls for the job out there, that don't require the license cost of the entire Office 2007.
But I'll agree it has nothing to do with a new language being introduced.
And they'll most likely even have different teams allocated for the languages. Microsoft is big after all. Just like which route they take with C# doesn't have to affect what they do with their native C++ or VB.NET support.
Why not clean up the fucking dotnet framework reference dlls?
And that will help Microsoft reach their goal with this new language - how? And what parts?
I really like mono - the work that has been done is nothing short of amazing but the constant catch-up with Microsoft is a concern.
If it's about Java vs Mono, remember that catching up is only a concern if the condition of Java offering features the latest version of .NET also do, but not Mono.
Just saying that it's easy to fall into the trap of feeling the situation being "inadequate" if having to catch up with Microsoft's latest features, even if you don't need them.
Personally, I think Mono 2.0 is a quite amazing feat, and .NET 2.0 support is great. We're developing for .NET 2.0 ourselves, and the .NET 3.0 API classes aren't overly interesting, as they're such behemoths to learn and adapt to thoroughly (a WPF UI has no relationship whatsoever to a WinForms UI, for example -- good luck in porting, etc, etc), and also the added .NET redistributable size.
But still, yeah, Java is also very good to develop for in comparison. I'd say that if your focus is Windows (and/or Windows Mobile), go for .NET -- you'll now as a bonus have Mono 2.0 to greatly ease the pains of porting if you stay away from those evil native code Windows libraries, and Visual Studio / .NET will most likely offer a better experience on Windows than Java.
But on the other hand, if you see yourself just as likely developing for Linux or OS X as Windows, Java could still be a better idea.
A lot of my applications use LINQ (.Net 3.5). I wouldn't really like to go back to SQL.
http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/linqbridge.aspx
True, but a company installing their apps on a multitude of machines for a customer's mixed environment, will probably don't want to mess around with customized packages from that site that are tailored for x86, x64, etc.
From the site:
Why would you EVER want to download the whole archive? Only if you're a developer and you want to distribute the .NET Framework the widest possible audience in a format like a CD or DVD.
Well, that's probably exactly what a developer wants to do. Have their app run on the full supported range of hardware, as supported by .NET. Heck, .NET isn't even cross-platform (this site isn't redistributing Mono), so there are already constraints here.
So of course there are good reasons to use the full 200 MB package -- it's to not have to care for what the customer uses. You'd feel pretty stupid if you went to install some software and noticed your customized .NET package didn't contain support for the ia64 architecture. ;-)
Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0?
Agreed about this, as I said above. .NET 2.0 was a major step forward with the generics libraries and much more, but .NET 3.0 is about Windows Presentation Foundation (vector graphics-based and hardware accelerated UI support) and Windows Communications Foundation (an abstraction of various .NET comms libraries so the developer don't need to develop for specific protocols). These are actually some quite good ideas by MS IMHO, but still, it's quite some beasts with their notable footprints for the redistributable packages (the .NET 3.5 Redist is... 200 Fucking Megabytes in its offline installer), and also with little existing "killer apps" written for those libraries that attracts developer attention in the industry.
Basically, people think "Why learn WPF to develop cool vector graphics-based user interfaces when it's an entirely new API to learn and it will as a result not follow Microsoft's own UI guidelines?"
And IMHO, they're completely right in questioning that. Especially with said runtime. :-S
I'm aware Microsoft offers "online installers", but there's always a risk in relying on network connectivity and Microsoft's servers being up and running (and being fast at the moment for a hassle-free installation experience). Microsoft is also working on a special feature in the latest service pack IIRC to "bootstrap" the .NET 3.5 Framework, but this is bleeding edge stuff that I'm uncertain of how much application performance will suffer from it (on-demand downloading of .NET components as they're needed).
Having said that, by the way, I'm developing software partially for .NET and partially for Win32/C++, and we use to target the .NET 2.0 Framework because .NET 3.0+ uses a 100+ MB large redistributable for things like the WPF vector graphics interface with no good standardized widget set. Looking at the .NET software market elsewhere, we don't seem to be alone. Actually, we seem to be the norm.
Without the support of features in .Net 3.5, very few people are going to choose it for new developments.
Do you really think so?
Mono 2.0 has a C# 3.0 compiler (i.e. the same feature set as the one shipping with .NET 3.5).
As for the .NET framework itself, compiler aside, .NET 3.5 is basically about WPF/WCF/WF -- can you really count to, say, three high profile emerging apps making use of these libraries?
It can only update every couple of minutes? Not to worry, Lucas will stretch out Episode XXIV accordingly.
And don't forget about the Episode I remake. It may actually be more watchable that round, giving us time to mentally recover between the frames of Jar-Jar.
African meat or European?
OK, sorry, maybe I'm taking this too far. :)
Compare and contrast this with the Chinese Program. This program exists to control the thoughts of the Chinese people. It censors them and prevents the flow of information. Then it reports on them simply because they are talking about things which in the United States are completely legal to talk about but in China are completely illegal to talk about. China has no freedom of speech. Their every move is watched to control them online. They aren't trying to track terrorists here. They are trying to play mind control. They are trying to censor the publics thoughts.
Is it "thoughts" when it's about China and not when it's about the USA? Why are you using such a strong words as "thoughts", when it's really about what they say?
But yeah, there is a difference in what kind of activities the two governments want to stop. In both governments, that definition is up to the government though, and they are no longer always obviously serving the people. "Terrorists" sounds all good and well, but there have been so many news about strange definitions of that.
Why is that reply considered flamebait? Isn't that how it is, really? Recent debates in Sweden is at least about new signal analysis laws for all internationall computer traffic passing our borders. Much worse than just internet telephony alone, even.
Define "enough variations"? What do you think is reasonable? A spammer network can build quite a database of images vs how many images a company is willing to hold. I'd dare say a bot network with all their hard drives have the edge here compared to a company's financing set aside for their anti-spam solution. Not only because of a bot networks potential scalability, but because due to the illegality of it all, a spammer doesn't finance the cost of setting it up -- his victims do.
Besides, it's not like you can challenge any extra charges on your credit card. :-p
Sure, that would be a nuisance, but if Google purhcases at all led to leaked card numbers and this at all took place on some scale, it would very fast bite Google and ruin their reputation in a way I don't think they'd be willing to take.
Well there is fragmentation produces as they introduce YET another language.
Meh.. As for Windows development, I think .NET did a lot of good things. Most importantly, made a .NET developer easily understand and switch between C#, VB .NET or heck even something else .NET based that would come up later. The difficulty in a new language lies usually not in the syntax, but in learning the API. .NET was a great gift for the Windows developers in that regard. No more.. "Uhmm, MFC if you do C++ or VB6 if you want VB"... As for Microsoft's offerings. Eek. Things were *ugly* in the past. And hell of a lot more fragmented.