No you can't. Al you are talking about is configuring and maintaining an image. I'm talking about building it to fit your needs... not simply changing config files.
Here they go again, saying that Red Hat equals Linux. Hey I got one word for their comparison... CentOS. It's RedHat EL without all the trademarked stuff. And yes, they could make all the changes and offer it under CentOS if they wish. Their big point is that changes to Redhat's codebase isn't going to go back into Redhat's Final Product necessarilly.
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no.
I'm sorry but this Microspin Doctor's argument looks to be in beta still. As per usual, I don't expect Microsoft's final argument to be worth anything until the third release.
Since when have standards stood in Microsoft's way. Name one standard that they comply with that they don't own? Go ahead... name one. I know they haven't complied with any of the W3C standards forever and instead attempt to implement their own standards.
Standards? They don't need no steenking standards!
This is one reason why I don't use C#. People who use C# develop for Windows and Windows only (MONO be damned). C# is owned by Microsoft; true there is an open implementation but Microsoft has refused to support it, refused to allow them to their.NET conferences or anything else... which says they will NEVER support an open implementation of C#.
It's like building an 'open source' house with wood that's owned by Bill Gates. What is going to happen to your house when Bill decides to start breeding termites on location? Bye bye house. And bye bye open source C# implementation.
Being a Microsoft CEO is the best job ever! You can pick and choose what customer complaints you want to listen to and disregard all others without any justification whatsoever
Every single article this guy puts out is heavily slanted, neglects to take into consideration loaded objects that Windows preloads and extremely anti-open source. I have yet to see him put out one article claiming anything that is open source is good.
Over promise... under deliver, remember? This is the Microsoft way. It's not plan well and then have a well structured launch. First they make promises and then they work on delivering. It's been this way with almost every single one of their products. They see someone making alot of money making a product and say 'me too! me too!' and then make loads of promises and lots of hype and then when it's delivered, the product only has half the features they mentioned and doesn't work well at all until at LEAST the third version. Did I just describe every Microsoft product? OOps.
Use PDFlib and replace the form field with text fields. Basically, you read the form fields default data, then replace the form fields with text boxes. This is a way to take the form and 'flatten it'.
I've tried to say this several times already but the individual just gets belligerent. Honestly, if he wants to call me a liar he can but he's wrong when he says it can't be done. Whether he wants to try it for himself or not is up to him.
All I'm sayin is use PDFlib with PHP and it's very simple.
Now if he wants to have the form fields filled out to where they can't be changed, he needs to use PDFlib with PHO. PDFlib can work with existing PDF's and overwrite them. In this instance, you would remove the form fields and replace them with a text box if you wanted them not to be over written.
Between FDF and PDFlib, there is nothing you can't do to a PDF and PHP.
Populating form fields is handled via FDF or XML generated in PHP through MySQL. You just asked how to do those functions with PHP. I told you; use the PDFlib mod for PHP.
Through PDFlib you autogenerate your pdf, then use FDF (or XML) to read data from a DB and populate your PDF.
OR... while generating your PDF, default form fields with data from your DB.
There are lots of ways to do it. It's not really that hard. Seriously.
I handle PDF generation all the time through PDFlib. FDF generation is built in and simple. Image generation through GD and ImageMagick. SOAP and XML can be compiled in when you do the 'make'.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say PHP can't do these things. Been doing some of them for a long time.
Dunno. Hard to say, because some of the vulnerabilities reported could be easily plugged by home users through editing the about:config file. But I imagine very few since so few of the vulnerabilities have been critical to date and then they are only critical on Windows machines so who really cares.:)
Joke joke. But get your butt onto Linux... seriously.
Yes well you also fail to take into consideration IT departments which download once and install multiple times. IT departments have to maintain control over installed software so they just maintain install images and a localized software depository and push it out when it is needed or update that one copy when needed. So the stat is flawed both ways.
But I would say that I would think it balances out and that this still is probably the best stat we have for judging it's growth. It would be nice to see a graph of downloads month by month to REALLY see the growth in adoption rate.
Let's hope he didn't have to trade his credibility in the process. Microsoft tends to be like a Roach motel in that sense; credibility checks in but it don't check out.
Bacause it never differs. They don't talk about open source, they talk about 'Microsoft's shared source'. And they don't talk about UNIX, they talk about 'Microsofts UNIX services'. They have yet to even embrace open source and are still in denial.
So why would I want to hear about Microsoft's perspective on open source when they have yet to embrace it?
Yeah well, when they are the keynote at a conference for their company, you can guarantee that his speech was written for him by the Microsoft marketing department.
Actually it is surprising because that same component can be accessed through your browser
And if you wish to see examples, roll through CERT's security holes for IE. It lists several and even goes on to say on a couple of them that they are due to the browser being integrated.
I'm not here to convince you since your mind is already made up. Just stating the facts for those who wish to be objective.
Actually if you take a look at your registry while trying to remove all references to IE, you will notice that your Explorer window can call a URL. This cannot be removed without crippling your system. You can remove all references to IE but Windows will still default to it's install of IE 4.0. Try it sometime. You will see just how integrated it is and you will spot several interesting items that allow yoyu SYTEMlevel access through the browser.
Symantec, CERT are just two who have been saying this long before Microsoft ever became a competitor and to date, Microsoft is still NOT a competitor because they have YET to launch a product. How are you able to label them as a competitor when they have yet to even enter the race? And regardless, these are things that have been said for the last 5 years... not recent news. Even if Microsoft is considered a competitor without even launching a product, how do you explain that it's been being said for years. Not only by security experts but also by foreign nations, IT depts at schools, and even the US government and dept of homeland security. Ibn fact, you'd be hard pressed to find someone aside from Microsoft saying the opposite.
And I'm sure that having the browser integrated is a nice convenience but there are ways to do this without have all commands be passed straight through the kernel. Several past security holes were a direct result of this and several unconfirmed and still open ones are a direct result of this as well. For examples, go to CERT and look through their listings for IE. The facts speak for themselves.
Rigght, viruses only strike in November. Zero day viruses and exploits have already been proven to exist in the wild but for you, because you are running on Microsoft, they'll wait until November to hit you. Even speaking metaphorically, your argumen doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No you can't. Al you are talking about is configuring and maintaining an image. I'm talking about building it to fit your needs... not simply changing config files.
Here they go again, saying that Red Hat equals Linux. Hey I got one word for their comparison... CentOS. It's RedHat EL without all the trademarked stuff. And yes, they could make all the changes and offer it under CentOS if they wish. Their big point is that changes to Redhat's codebase isn't going to go back into Redhat's Final Product necessarilly.
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no.
I'm sorry but this Microspin Doctor's argument looks to be in beta still. As per usual, I don't expect Microsoft's final argument to be worth anything until the third release.
Since when have standards stood in Microsoft's way. Name one standard that they comply with that they don't own? Go ahead... name one. I know they haven't complied with any of the W3C standards forever and instead attempt to implement their own standards.
Standards? They don't need no steenking standards!
Being an anonymous loser is the best job ever! You can pick your butt, post what you find online and disregard bad karma :)
This is one reason why I don't use C#. People who use C# develop for Windows and Windows only (MONO be damned). C# is owned by Microsoft; true there is an open implementation but Microsoft has refused to support it, refused to allow them to their .NET conferences or anything else... which says they will NEVER support an open implementation of C#.
It's like building an 'open source' house with wood that's owned by Bill Gates. What is going to happen to your house when Bill decides to start breeding termites on location? Bye bye house. And bye bye open source C# implementation.
Being a Microsoft CEO is the best job ever! You can pick and choose what customer complaints you want to listen to and disregard all others without any justification whatsoever
Every single article this guy puts out is heavily slanted, neglects to take into consideration loaded objects that Windows preloads and extremely anti-open source. I have yet to see him put out one article claiming anything that is open source is good.
If Microsoft isn't paying him, he must own stock.
Over promise... under deliver, remember? This is the Microsoft way. It's not plan well and then have a well structured launch. First they make promises and then they work on delivering. It's been this way with almost every single one of their products. They see someone making alot of money making a product and say 'me too! me too!' and then make loads of promises and lots of hype and then when it's delivered, the product only has half the features they mentioned and doesn't work well at all until at LEAST the third version. Did I just describe every Microsoft product? OOps.
Nothing new here.
Use PDFlib and replace the form field with text fields. Basically, you read the form fields default data, then replace the form fields with text boxes. This is a way to take the form and 'flatten it'.
I've tried to say this several times already but the individual just gets belligerent. Honestly, if he wants to call me a liar he can but he's wrong when he says it can't be done. Whether he wants to try it for himself or not is up to him.
All I'm sayin is use PDFlib with PHP and it's very simple.
Yes there is. FDF. Built in capabilities in PHP.
Now if he wants to have the form fields filled out to where they can't be changed, he needs to use PDFlib with PHO. PDFlib can work with existing PDF's and overwrite them. In this instance, you would remove the form fields and replace them with a text box if you wanted them not to be over written.
Between FDF and PDFlib, there is nothing you can't do to a PDF and PHP.
Can you take a given PDF and modify it's form fields?
And I answered yes. And you seem to have missed all the times I have said yes and explained in simple english how to do it.
No sweat though if you can't understand. PHP can seem very complex to your average Visual Basic programmer.
To dynamically pop the PDF AFTER you have sent it, you use javascript built into the PDF when you dynamically generate it via PHP. :)
:)
Again, fairly simple
Any other questions?
Populating form fields is handled via FDF or XML generated in PHP through MySQL. You just asked how to do those functions with PHP. I told you; use the PDFlib mod for PHP.
Through PDFlib you autogenerate your pdf, then use FDF (or XML) to read data from a DB and populate your PDF.
OR... while generating your PDF, default form fields with data from your DB.
There are lots of ways to do it. It's not really that hard. Seriously.
PDFlib. :)
Allows you to modify and even merge PDF's through PHP. You can use ClibPDF as well but it has a rather limited function set.
Well yes, if your stupid.
:)
But not me. I'm smart.
I didn't find any of it to be a problem. Would you like me to call you now? Cause it would be kinda difficult to do it in the past.
I handle PDF generation all the time through PDFlib. FDF generation is built in and simple. Image generation through GD and ImageMagick. SOAP and XML can be compiled in when you do the 'make'.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say PHP can't do these things. Been doing some of them for a long time.
Dunno. Hard to say, because some of the vulnerabilities reported could be easily plugged by home users through editing the about:config file. But I imagine very few since so few of the vulnerabilities have been critical to date and then they are only critical on Windows machines so who really cares. :)
Joke joke. But get your butt onto Linux... seriously.
Yes well you also fail to take into consideration IT departments which download once and install multiple times. IT departments have to maintain control over installed software so they just maintain install images and a localized software depository and push it out when it is needed or update that one copy when needed. So the stat is flawed both ways.
But I would say that I would think it balances out and that this still is probably the best stat we have for judging it's growth. It would be nice to see a graph of downloads month by month to REALLY see the growth in adoption rate.
HA HA!
Let's hope he didn't have to trade his credibility in the process. Microsoft tends to be like a Roach motel in that sense; credibility checks in but it don't check out.
Bacause it never differs. They don't talk about open source, they talk about 'Microsoft's shared source'. And they don't talk about UNIX, they talk about 'Microsofts UNIX services'. They have yet to even embrace open source and are still in denial.
So why would I want to hear about Microsoft's perspective on open source when they have yet to embrace it?
Yeah well, when they are the keynote at a conference for their company, you can guarantee that his speech was written for him by the Microsoft marketing department.
Actually it is surprising because that same component can be accessed through your browser
And if you wish to see examples, roll through CERT's security holes for IE. It lists several and even goes on to say on a couple of them that they are due to the browser being integrated.
I'm not here to convince you since your mind is already made up. Just stating the facts for those who wish to be objective.
Actually if you take a look at your registry while trying to remove all references to IE, you will notice that your Explorer window can call a URL. This cannot be removed without crippling your system. You can remove all references to IE but Windows will still default to it's install of IE 4.0. Try it sometime. You will see just how integrated it is and you will spot several interesting items that allow yoyu SYTEMlevel access through the browser.
Symantec, CERT are just two who have been saying this long before Microsoft ever became a competitor and to date, Microsoft is still NOT a competitor because they have YET to launch a product. How are you able to label them as a competitor when they have yet to even enter the race? And regardless, these are things that have been said for the last 5 years... not recent news. Even if Microsoft is considered a competitor without even launching a product, how do you explain that it's been being said for years. Not only by security experts but also by foreign nations, IT depts at schools, and even the US government and dept of homeland security. Ibn fact, you'd be hard pressed to find someone aside from Microsoft saying the opposite.
And I'm sure that having the browser integrated is a nice convenience but there are ways to do this without have all commands be passed straight through the kernel. Several past security holes were a direct result of this and several unconfirmed and still open ones are a direct result of this as well. For examples, go to CERT and look through their listings for IE. The facts speak for themselves.
Rigght, viruses only strike in November. Zero day viruses and exploits have already been proven to exist in the wild but for you, because you are running on Microsoft, they'll wait until November to hit you. Even speaking metaphorically, your argumen doesn't make sense.