A> What you describe is *exactly* what is going on, in case you didn't know. You want proof? Take a look at this browser: http://www.netcaptor.com/ Basically, IE with tabbed browsing. Here is an MDI IE, as well as numerous privacy features: http://www.smarteque.com/ Here is another one, with a different look and offering channeled browsing: http://www.neoplanet.com/
All of the above cost money, if it's of any interest to you. To note, it's not exactly a 64KB exe, there are some IE Browser spesific stuff, but it's very small none-the-less.
The use of the IE control is free of charge, BTW, so all of the above don't pay royality for MS.
B> If Compaq wants to offer a browser just like IE, but with different icon, logo, bookmarks & homepage, it doesn't need to write a single line of code. Internet Exploerer Administration Kit http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ieak/default .asp
The kit, and the resulting package, are completely free to use.
So they got you there.
And, just to note, that was the case since roughyl IE 3, or so.
In that case, please define what *is* IE? Are you talking about the Desktop Icon? Or perhaps the executable? c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE it less than 90Kb on 6.0 Or would deleting the directory c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\ satisfy you? All of those are perfectly possible, but they wouldn't get rid of IE as most people sees it.
Have it occured to you to look at the *size* of those help files? Often enough, it's the time that takes to load the file that takes most of the time, not the processing time.
Windows lend itself very well for this type of behaviour. All you need is to re-implement the COM components, and install them in the GUIDs of IE, WMP, etc, and it will work correctly.
Read any book on managing programmers, and you'll discover that programmers are much more efficent in an office than in a cubicle.
Read: This article
Basically programmers need concentration to work, and being in a cubicle all day mean that they are constantly being interuppted. Not good!
You can install MDAC on Win95, therefor, you don't need to copy MDAC functionality, only 95 functionality, and then just install MDAC!
That is the point I'm trying to make, once you got the common base, you can start expending, but there are glaring holes in WINE that has been there for a long time.
They were fixed. They already disabled the auto-exec of files, which is something that helps, but we see users saving and then executing already. Don't know about the mime problem, but I think they fixed it too.
The problem is that it's not so much as a technical issue as a human issue.
In general, what *are* your problems with outlook? You list the viruses, which have been fixed, to the best of the ability that you can without rendering the client totally useless.
About very few re-writes... please see Netscape case. And there isn't a *need* to re-write outlook if one dialog box is all what you are concerned about.
Wrong, by large the most part of the used API in Windows has been stable not since Win95, but since Windows NT 3.1. All those updates that you mention, yes, they are useful, and yes, they are being used, and no, they *aren't* that needeful, because everybody and their wife test on freshly installed Win95.
As for MFCxx.dll, that is an abstraction library that builds *on* Win32 API.
Developing for OS/2 was harder than for Windows, because MS did everything that they could to convince developers to develop for Windows, and IBM force developers to pay for the info needed to program for OS/2 This, along with several other foul-ups, resulted in OS/2 being the inferior platform.
Those two points that you noted could be fixed in about a week by someone who knows the product.
As for a redesign, it's a totally different thing than re-writing. Re-design mean that you change the way that the product works, but you get to keep a lot of the old code, because you keep the code in a working order *all the time*. Re-writing means that you start from zero, so you don't have a working product until you are done, see NS for the results of such a thing.
Not really. On Windows & Linux (I believe, not certain) pages are being faulted to memory, so if you've a part of the executable that you don't touch, then it's simply not being brought to memory. If you've a 100MB exe, but you only use 1MB of code from it, then it will use only 1MB.
As for the other reason, any big enough project is being cut to pieces, on Windows, it's usually COM objects, meaning that it's fairly easy to dissect the parts that gives you trouble. Beside, if you don't use something, it can't crash your program.
After all, if there isn't a dispute about whatever the messages were forged or not, then I don't see any reason for this not to be a binding contract. What *is* the difference if I sign my name or type it?
And before you get to forging, it doesn't appear to be the case here, but email forging is not much easier than signature forging, and that can be verified by digitally signing the email.
The language, naturally. Otherwise you can't write a compiler.
ISTR that the first Pascal compiler had compiled itself, by hand, someone sat and run the program through his head and wrote the opcode to the machine.
It's nice to know that it can build itself, too bad that then it immediately crash and brun. It's a good step in creating a self - sufficent Mono implementation. But didn't that story already appear on/.?
Writing self modifying code is hard, it's even harder to debug, and thrice as hard to follow. To the best of my knowledge, most common OS define text segments of processes as read & execute only.
In a world, bullshit. C doesn't allow me to control the content of a register, in fact, it doesn't even know what a register *is*, does it make it to a bad language?
Get a hold on yourself and realize that for a lot of things, you don't bloody *need*, all this control. It'll hinder you because you've to deal with the infrastructure that is basically the same for over 99% of the tasks you would do. In the cases where you *do* want to do something out of the ordinary, then the language/OS/runtime should allow you a way out. Like C's ability to drop to assembly, and.NET ablity to use unsafe code.
As a matter of fact, there *is* a clearly defined API, it's the IE's COM interfaces. You want to change it? Build an application that implements all of them correctly, and then replace the Inproc32 key for your application in IE's GUID.
You fail to consider human factors into the equation. People simply wouldn't buy the new format unless it can: A> Play CDS (witness DVDs). B> Has some *big* advantage that is important to the *user*.
Otherwise, people just wouldn't use it, and law or no law, it will die and wither alone in the dark.
Slashdot Mirror
A> What you describe is *exactly* what is going on, in case you didn't know.
t .asp
You want proof? Take a look at this browser: http://www.netcaptor.com/
Basically, IE with tabbed browsing.
Here is an MDI IE, as well as numerous privacy features:
http://www.smarteque.com/
Here is another one, with a different look and offering channeled browsing:
http://www.neoplanet.com/
All of the above cost money, if it's of any interest to you.
To note, it's not exactly a 64KB exe, there are some IE Browser spesific stuff, but it's very small none-the-less.
The use of the IE control is free of charge, BTW, so all of the above don't pay royality for MS.
B> If Compaq wants to offer a browser just like IE, but with different icon, logo, bookmarks & homepage, it doesn't need to write a single line of code.
Internet Exploerer Administration Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ieak/defaul
The kit, and the resulting package, are completely free to use.
So they got you there.
And, just to note, that was the case since roughyl IE 3, or so.
In that case, please define what *is* IE?
Are you talking about the Desktop Icon?
Or perhaps the executable? c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE it less than 90Kb on 6.0
Or would deleting the directory c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\ satisfy you?
All of those are perfectly possible, but they wouldn't get rid of IE as most people sees it.
Have it occured to you to look at the *size* of those help files? Often enough, it's the time that takes to load the file that takes most of the time, not the processing time.
Windows lend itself very well for this type of behaviour.
All you need is to re-implement the COM components, and install them in the GUIDs of IE, WMP, etc, and it will work correctly.
Note: Microsoft's implementation is within the standard's defination.
Read any book on managing programmers, and you'll discover that programmers are much more efficent in an office than in a cubicle.
Read: This article
Basically programmers need concentration to work, and being in a cubicle all day mean that they are constantly being interuppted.
Not good!
You can install MDAC on Win95, therefor, you don't need to copy MDAC functionality, only 95 functionality, and then just install MDAC!
That is the point I'm trying to make, once you got the common base, you can start expending, but there are glaring holes in WINE that has been there for a long time.
Has it occured to anyone that if someone suddenly touched a dormat source code, it might be for large things, and not just small bug fixes?
You are aware that Bonobo is a copy of MS techonology called COM, right?
The one nearly *every* Win application is built of?
Hm, IIRC, there is a checkbox to disable this behaviour if you are sure of yourself.
They were fixed.
They already disabled the auto-exec of files, which is something that helps, but we see users saving and then executing already.
Don't know about the mime problem, but I think they fixed it too.
The problem is that it's not so much as a technical issue as a human issue.
In general, what *are* your problems with outlook? You list the viruses, which have been fixed, to the best of the ability that you can without rendering the client totally useless.
About very few re-writes... please see Netscape case.
And there isn't a *need* to re-write outlook if one dialog box is all what you are concerned about.
Wrong, by large the most part of the used API in Windows has been stable not since Win95, but since Windows NT 3.1.
All those updates that you mention, yes, they are useful, and yes, they are being used, and no, they *aren't* that needeful, because everybody and their wife test on freshly installed Win95.
As for MFCxx.dll, that is an abstraction library that builds *on* Win32 API.
Developing for OS/2 was harder than for Windows, because MS did everything that they could to convince developers to develop for Windows, and IBM force developers to pay for the info needed to program for OS/2
This, along with several other foul-ups, resulted in OS/2 being the inferior platform.
Those two points that you noted could be fixed in about a week by someone who knows the product.
As for a redesign, it's a totally different thing than re-writing.
Re-design mean that you change the way that the product works, but you get to keep a lot of the old code, because you keep the code in a working order *all the time*.
Re-writing means that you start from zero, so you don't have a working product until you are done, see NS for the results of such a thing.
Not really.
On Windows & Linux (I believe, not certain) pages are being faulted to memory, so if you've a part of the executable that you don't touch, then it's simply not being brought to memory.
If you've a 100MB exe, but you only use 1MB of code from it, then it will use only 1MB.
As for the other reason, any big enough project is being cut to pieces, on Windows, it's usually COM objects, meaning that it's fairly easy to dissect the parts that gives you trouble.
Beside, if you don't use something, it can't crash your program.
After all, if there isn't a dispute about whatever the messages were forged or not, then I don't see any reason for this not to be a binding contract.
What *is* the difference if I sign my name or type it?
And before you get to forging, it doesn't appear to be the case here, but email forging is not much easier than signature forging, and that can be verified by digitally signing the email.
Actually, there are plenty of uses for this, to store thumbnails for picture files, like Explorer does.
The language, naturally.
Otherwise you can't write a compiler.
ISTR that the first Pascal compiler had compiled itself, by hand, someone sat and run the program through his head and wrote the opcode to the machine.
It's nice to know that it can build itself, too bad that then it immediately crash and brun. /.?
It's a good step in creating a self - sufficent Mono implementation.
But didn't that story already appear on
Writing self modifying code is hard, it's even harder to debug, and thrice as hard to follow.
To the best of my knowledge, most common OS define text segments of processes as read & execute only.
In a world, bullshit.
.NET ablity to use unsafe code.
C doesn't allow me to control the content of a register, in fact, it doesn't even know what a register *is*, does it make it to a bad language?
Get a hold on yourself and realize that for a lot of things, you don't bloody *need*, all this control. It'll hinder you because you've to deal with the infrastructure that is basically the same for over 99% of the tasks you would do.
In the cases where you *do* want to do something out of the ordinary, then the language/OS/runtime should allow you a way out.
Like C's ability to drop to assembly, and
As a matter of fact, there *is* a clearly defined API, it's the IE's COM interfaces.
You want to change it? Build an application that implements all of them correctly, and then replace the Inproc32 key for your application in IE's GUID.
Name one general purpose OS that comes without a browser.
You fail to consider human factors into the equation.
People simply wouldn't buy the new format unless it can:
A> Play CDS (witness DVDs).
B> Has some *big* advantage that is important to the *user*.
Otherwise, people just wouldn't use it, and law or no law, it will die and wither alone in the dark.
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/java.html
Been there, done that, moved on...
There is *nothing* in Java that prevents you from writing viruses if you're running a Java application.