since after you botched an install of the thing the quickest way to get the next install working without causing compatibility issues was to reinstall Linux from CD.
Actually no. Win2K3 does not have directx enabled by default - it does not even have graphic acceleration enabled. Check this site for how much work needs to be done to get 2K3 behaving like a workstation. They actually got a lot of things right with 2k3; sadly it was lost in the hype and flimflam of XP/Vista etc.
That sentence was put in by the article submitter, no such claims are made by MS.
And they arent talking about abstract design concepts, they're presenting how their system works, at a conference of security experts; they want feedback on their implementation. But let's just keep trotting out the party line shall we? A beautiful mind indeed...
Well, that's basically the point - their claim is that the higher integration among MS products gives them a greater score, compared to an random selection of OSS components.
Sharepoint however has got a sizeable portion of native code - hence equating Sharepoint performance with.NET's is a bit misleading, IMO. The throughput could also be due to IIS 6's kernel hooks and other assorted tricks.
Well, the AC's right, and you're wrong. Widgets arent native, and programming with the mozilla codebase sucks. There are much better platforms available for developing cross-platform GUI apps. And my-app-runs-within-the-browser! trick isnt new any more- the tide is turning with rich desktop platforms coming out soon. Qt4,Gnome-xgl,WPF-Avalon all offer facilities for creating extremely slick interfaces.
Not necessarily far-fetched as you might think. It's been done before; for instance check Inferno, an OS developed in Bell labs.(AT&T/Lucent/VitaNuova....). A full Inferno system ran as a plugin for IE.
I hear this kind of speach a lot and it concerns me. It seems to me that basically all data files (or network packets, etc.) are binary formats. What's really in question is what kind of higher-level data structures are imposed on those binary formats.
Rubbish. Parsing XML is slow; compared to binary-only formats. The nice property of XML is that it's self-describing, easy to parse, and human readable. However, nothing beats the performance of ripping through raw binary data.
The other big mistake: file formats aren't fast or slow. The algorithms for reading and writing them are (or aren't) slow. Marino Marcich of the ODF Alliance implicitely made this point when he said that different ODF-capable applications have different performances. Perhaps you could, in a fit of brilliant computer science analysis, prove that no reader for a particular file format could parse it as fast as Word 2000 can parse a.doc file, but no one has made that claim.
Again Rubbish. It's very well possible to design a data format that lends itself to better performance. This is the claim that they make, and is worth investigation.
I guess the loyal crowd has already reeled in +5 Insightful mods by railing against MS, but it might not be a bad idea to actually read the article.
Mr.Yates says OpenXML has been designed with performance in mind, whereas ODF is not. A binary format such as.doc definitely has a few speed advantages over a XML format, hence it'd be good to have the replacement XML schema designed for performance.
I wouldnt know if this was actually the case; however, it would be good to investigate if the claims were true. OpenOffice could very well do with a major performance boost. A lean,well-designed XML schema cannot hurt.
It's very good for what it does out of the box, but the extension capabilities suck. Three different programming models(Web parts,CAML,Sharepoint object model) for extensions, wacky directory structure, SQL server dependence, windows authentication, a stupid markup language with no designer support, and a whole lot of inadeuqately documented features.
Working across firewalls? Do you use the whole gamut of office integration features? Such as MS Project publishing, Outlook sync, and document storage for Office documents. I suppose there's always a way(reverse ISA proxies and all), but the bang-for-the-buck factor seemed to be pretty low, for such requirements. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of hacks/duct-tape you had to apply.
Next version promises to change all, as do all MS products. Let's see...
SP2 put a firewall on every desktop
The other most important thing they did; turned on Windows Update by default. Those 2 decisions were probably the best MS has taken in a long time.
There's a difference between plain ignorance and actually knowing what you're doing. Now I'd agree there are a few arcane ways of getting viruses without user intervention, but are relatively easy to avoid when behind following safe procedures.
Viruses arent magical genies that pop into your computer; they need a vector for propagation and execution. Having sane firewalling rules, patching operating systems regularly, using safe browsers and internet tools pretty much cover most of the attack vectors. My guess is that GP knows what he's doing, and I'd wager he doesnt have viruses in his systems.
Nah. Good ideas are easy to get, and easy to implement.
But few people get world-changing ideas. To think up something like Google or Bittorrent is the challenge; doing it is just a lot of fun & hard-work. Granted it sometimes pays off, it sometimes doesnt. However, without the idea carrying weight, all you get is a polished turd. That's how I see it anyway.
I have not tried to claim otherwise - the OP had indicated that there was no sign of any standardization in the.NET framework; I've merely pointed out that the core services such as the CLI & C# are standardized.
I am doing no advocacy for Mono; I've just made a factual observation that some portions of the.NET framework are standardized. I work with the Framework everyday, and I can appreciate the size and effort involved in creating the CLI & C#. As you've said, others can decide for themselves if this is substantial or not;)
The standard definitely is constrained to C# and CLI, but it's more than sufficient as a base platform. Standards do not necessarily have to encompass every single piece of functionality; for example, consider POSIX. It definitely does not include a lot of things, but still was a good step towards writing cross-platform code targeting various OS.
I agree that standardizing some other elements such as Forms etc may be beneficial; however, let's not discount the massive infrastructure the CLR and C# language adds to the development process.
don't ever expect.NET to be so don't bother discussing it(The wonderful Mono efforts aside)
That's sad really, I wonder on what standards those "wonderful Mono efforts" are based on ?
Yeah. There'll never be a open standard for.NET, never bother about open sourceimplementations.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish there was a "+1 This guy posted just what I wanted to post" option..
Actually no. Win2K3 does not have directx enabled by default - it does not even have graphic acceleration enabled. Check this site for how much work needs to be done to get 2K3 behaving like a workstation. They actually got a lot of things right with 2k3; sadly it was lost in the hype and flimflam of XP/Vista etc.
That sentence was put in by the article submitter, no such claims are made by MS.
And they arent talking about abstract design concepts, they're presenting how their system works, at a conference of security experts; they want feedback on their implementation. But let's just keep trotting out the party line shall we? A beautiful mind indeed...
Well, that's basically the point - their claim is that the higher integration among MS products gives them a greater score, compared to an random selection of OSS components.
.NET's is a bit misleading, IMO. The throughput could also be due to IIS 6's kernel hooks and other assorted tricks.
Sharepoint however has got a sizeable portion of native code - hence equating Sharepoint performance with
Well, the AC's right, and you're wrong. Widgets arent native, and programming with the mozilla codebase sucks. There are much better platforms available for developing cross-platform GUI apps. And my-app-runs-within-the-browser! trick isnt new any more- the tide is turning with rich desktop platforms coming out soon. Qt4,Gnome-xgl,WPF-Avalon all offer facilities for creating extremely slick interfaces.
Not necessarily far-fetched as you might think. It's been done before; for instance check Inferno, an OS developed in Bell labs.(AT&T/Lucent/VitaNuova ....). A full Inferno system ran as a plugin for IE.
Oh bull. MS content delivery is akamized ; they've more bandwidth than Steve jobs has fanboys.
I guess you're right, Mea culpa. It seems some of the gfx work depends on win2k APIs, so NT4 is out.
Pre-Windows 2000 will also include Windows NT, which is still supported. Only W98 support is dropped.
Um no. They may grep, sed, awk, diff, tr, tail,head or more; but they never cat.
Does anybody have the "light" CSS too? I didn't think they'd mess up the light CSS; but damn, it looks awful now.
I guess the loyal crowd has already reeled in +5 Insightful mods by railing against MS, but it might not be a bad idea to actually read the article.
.doc definitely has a few speed advantages over a XML format, hence it'd be good to have the replacement XML schema designed for performance.
Mr.Yates says OpenXML has been designed with performance in mind, whereas ODF is not. A binary format such as
I wouldnt know if this was actually the case; however, it would be good to investigate if the claims were true. OpenOffice could very well do with a major performance boost. A lean,well-designed XML schema cannot hurt.
It's very good for what it does out of the box, but the extension capabilities suck.
Three different programming models(Web parts,CAML,Sharepoint object model) for extensions, wacky directory structure, SQL server dependence, windows authentication, a stupid markup language with no designer support, and a whole lot of inadeuqately documented features.
Working across firewalls? Do you use the whole gamut of office integration features? Such as MS Project publishing, Outlook sync, and document storage for Office documents. I suppose there's always a way(reverse ISA proxies and all), but the bang-for-the-buck factor seemed to be pretty low, for such requirements. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of hacks/duct-tape you had to apply.
Next version promises to change all, as do all MS products. Let's see...
Slashdot IDs? I thought Dolphins were supposed to be intelligent animals.
little boys? :P
SP2 put a firewall on every desktop
The other most important thing they did; turned on Windows Update by default. Those 2 decisions were probably the best MS has taken in a long time.
There's a difference between plain ignorance and actually knowing what you're doing. Now I'd agree there are a few arcane ways of getting viruses without user intervention, but are relatively easy to avoid when behind following safe procedures.
Viruses arent magical genies that pop into your computer; they need a vector for propagation and execution. Having sane firewalling rules, patching operating systems regularly, using safe browsers and internet tools pretty much cover most of the attack vectors. My guess is that GP knows what he's doing, and I'd wager he doesnt have viruses in his systems.
Nah. Good ideas are easy to get, and easy to implement.
But few people get world-changing ideas. To think up something like Google or Bittorrent is the challenge; doing it is just a lot of fun & hard-work. Granted it sometimes pays off, it sometimes doesnt. However, without the idea carrying weight, all you get is a polished turd. That's how I see it anyway.
I have not tried to claim otherwise - the OP had indicated that there was no sign of any standardization in the .NET framework; I've merely pointed out that the core services such as the CLI & C# are standardized.
.NET framework are standardized. I work with the Framework everyday, and I can appreciate the size and effort involved in creating the CLI & C#. As you've said, others can decide for themselves if this is substantial or not ;)
I am doing no advocacy for Mono; I've just made a factual observation that some portions of the
The standard definitely is constrained to C# and CLI, but it's more than sufficient as a base platform. Standards do not necessarily have to encompass every single piece of functionality; for example, consider POSIX. It definitely does not include a lot of things, but still was a good step towards writing cross-platform code targeting various OS.
I agree that standardizing some other elements such as Forms etc may be beneficial; however, let's not discount the massive infrastructure the CLR and C# language adds to the development process.
That's sad really, I wonder on what standards those "wonderful Mono efforts" are based on ? Yeah. There'll never be a open standard for .NET, never bother about open source implementations.
There's a company called Hybrid technologies that's launching this car, which also run on Lithium-based batteries.
Here's a business week story on them. It looks a bit like vaporware though, so a grain of salt is recommended.
In case you were serious, google "Markov chains".