Doesn't matter. Microsofts Office-xml format has plenty of binary data. They uuencode it so that it's official XML, but it's still encrypted or command content, not cleartext.
I've never seen binary code in any of the XML documents Office 2003 creates. Are you sure about that?
Because blogs are just little public journals. Can you really call it "publishing" when you're just writing up your opinion on some hosted website?
That's like if I called YOU a stalker in a Slashdot post, and you sued me for it. It's ridiculous. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I could make a website called saddinosucks.com and write stuff about you, and it wouldn't matter because it's my own personal website that I'm doing myself. Now, if I started making money off insulting you, that could be another scenario.
One thing I've noticed about most of those elite pricks who praise simple text-editors as the "only" way to do HTML is that their websites are usually OSS or bio sites that have no color schemes (just black text on white background), one or two pages, no tables, and a few links scattered around. Mostly, their content is just paragraphs of text, and as a whole, the site is very generic and ugly. Have you seen www.gnu.org? People's obsession with simplicity and non-bloat (no doubt stemming from their obsessive Microsoft hatred) have made them produce sites that are uglier than crusted dog shit. For the most part, programmers and hackers are not good artistic designers, and it shows, and I think that's why it's taken so long for us to get a visual tool like this--the stupid "l33t" attitudes have kept it away.
If you're doing a heavy graphics-intensive site for a professional company in which things need to be perfectly aligned, graphics need to match, and you're using a visual template you created for all 20 of your pages, you'd be a complete idiot to continue your elite attitude about a freakin' text editor.
Sometimes, the immature attitudes I see in this community amaze me. No professionalism at all...is it also bad to use visual editors when you design GTK or QT dialogs? When you're drawing pictures in GIMP (real people write those pixels using assembly routines)? Should OpenOffice not show you its formatting visually, instead just giving you its internal formatting codes and letting you have at it?
I don't get the animosity towards WYSIWYG HTML editors when the philosophy is embraced everywhere else. Why are HTML editors the target for that misinformed attitude? It's not like HTML is l33t knowledge that deserves an award or anything. And all the visual editors let you edit the code directly anyway. "I use vim!" I don't really care. Give me a tool that lets me do more than freakin' ugly www.gnu.org without wasting time wading through code when I could be--heaven forbid--designing visually.
In all fairness, Frontpage 2003 is a hugely revamped improvement over what they've usually put out. It actually generates clean code. So if you're not going to be doing PHP or things like that, it's actually a very viable solution.
Dreamweaver MX 2004 is incredibly good, but damn, it sucks up resources on my laptop, especially when I have a lot of cells in a table.
Sorry, but the name sucks! "Nvu?" Again, I have to complain about a ridiculous name for an OSS project. Why does this keep happening? Is there a sworn policy against normal, sane names in favor of awful-looking, unpronouncable in-jokes from the developers?
"I use Frontpage 2003!"
"I use...in-voo...nuh-voo...en-vee-you...fuck it, just trust me."
I doubt they expected anybody to notice or care when they fired him. They certainly didn't expect some Linux-biased site to find out and pick up the story, breathlessly claiming "Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo!" when they were just doing what was completely in their right for an employee breaking rules.
What's funny is, most Slashdotters love to rail against the media when they're sensationalistic and biased. Yet Slashdot does it everyday. "Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo." It's propoganda technique at its worst.
Exactly. People bitch about Microsoft building foundations and then trying to change them later on (i.e., security), but now they're trying to get input and feedback right from the start.
The official beta 1 of Longhorn is scheduled for next summer. As Paul Thurrott of Wininformant pointed out, this means it's entirely possible Longhorn could ship in 2005.
It also means it's not vaporware, to you certain trolls out there.:P
For all you trolls bitching pointlessly about the sidebar (which is optional anyway), this is from the UI guidelines page. which nicely describes what the sidebar is for:
"The sidebar will be most useful to users with large monitors who will have the space available to keep the sidebar open all the time. Users with small monitors will usually keep the sidebar minimized. When the sidebar is minimized, all sidebar tiles will have an icon in the taskbar; clicking an icon lets the user access the related tile."
In other words, it's not a big deal, and it won't take up your space. I think it's silly to react this way about an optional sidebar, when probably at least 80% of you run gkrellm and whatever other sidebar apps exist for the Linux desktop environment. This is just Microsoft's XML-based version of that concept (now comes the "they're stealing ideas again" replies).
Kind of reminds me of when Red Hat dared change their desktop theme, and all the knee-jerk Slashdotters flamed them to hell for absolutely no reason. Then it turned out not to be a big deal after all.
Where is even the slightest bit of objectivity these days?
To be fair, the only reason Slashdot keeps posting these Microsoft articles (count 'em...at least three in the past two DAYS!) is because all the Linux people have a field day bashing and bashing and bashing.
It's a really poor reflection on this community and makes it seem like they're just a bunch of trolls. Nobody can appreciate the technology anymore because it's "M$."
Could you imagine how nice this site would be if it was nothing but mature veteran UNIX hackers who calmly and rationally discussed the next version of Windows and how it fits into their computing paradigm? If it was just something they talked about (maybe even praised) and then moved on. Instead, we get "M$ IS CHANGING THEIR BSOD INTO 3D!!!1 HAHA" (+5 Funny)."
If anybody knows of a "News for Nerds" type site that doesn't have a corporate-owned agenda (*cough* Slashdot), could someone direct me to it?
Is Slashdot pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft? I'd rather see more Linux articles than Microsoft articles on the front page, so what happened that changed Slashdot into a Microsoft news site?
I think Microsoft succeeded. Hear of any holes for Windows 2003 Server other than that RPC bug that affected all Windows products? Red Hat introduces more security errata updates per week than Windows 2003 Server has had its entire life span.
Please. This is not Win98SE. You obviously have not read up on anything regarding Longhorn. I can't believe you got modded up by somebody.
Longhorn is a yawn, a client-only release.
Nope, there is a server version planned.
WinFS was supposed to replace NTFS.
No, it wasn't. Slashdot reported that it was supposed to, but that was false. A little reading, and people would have figured that out.
Now it's just gonna be IMDB (in-memory database) which was stripped from Win2000 at the last minute file-system filter driver, which will be used by Explorer.
What FUD! WinFS never existed in Windows 2000 and was never stripped at the last minute.
Neat, but isn't gonna change your business.
Uh, it's sure gonna be nice when I'll be able to search my 100+ GB hard drive for everything from contacts to e-mails in one window.
The shell theme will change.
The entire interface will change. It will be replaced with a DirectX accelerated photorealistic interface called Aero. Not only will visual cues be enhanced and smoother, but resolution-independent window resizing will exist so that no matter how high your resolution is, widgets remain the same size. This will extend to older applications as well.
The most interesting development, Avalon, will attempt to replace the Win32 api with managed code, *not* Windows..NET is what is replacing the Win32 library. Everything will be managed code, and as I hear, explorer.exe in the latest beta already is. Your next statement was confusing. I assume you thought there was some sort of confusion over what.NET is replacing, when everyone knows it's going to be the ancient Win32 API. Replace Windows? Huh? How could it replace itself?
Forms but a new client API. What'll end up happening by RTM is Microsoft will have written a great big propriatary app that you won't be able to use.
You're not even making sense. What big proprietary app? Are you talking about the.NET run-time? What on earth are you referring to? You seem to fancy yourself as some sort of psychic, predicting what "Microsoft will do" three years down the road.
There will be minor kernel perf tweaks...
I guess you must be some Windows kernel engineer who magically obtained the source code to Longhorn....but if you still launch 200 processes you still see random failures from CreateProcess. (Never tried it, have you?)
Slashdot Mirror
I use their apps--the dialogs are the same, I don't know what you're talking about.
Office XP and 2003 both adapt to your color scheme. They simply use custom graphics to display them.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/10/154122 2&mode=nested&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188&tid=98&tid=9 9
This story is pretty old. It even looks like the same summary almost word for word.
With brilliant grammer skills like that I am sure you a wooing and awing a whole bunch of 7th graders.
Yeah, those "grammer" skills you possess must be keeping you in style.
Why don't you compare the number of holes this month in Windows Server 2003 compared to, say, Red Hat 9 or Debian?
Wouldn't it violate my speech rights if they do even if it is slander?
No, you don't have "speech rights" on somebody's messageboard.
Doesn't matter. Microsofts Office-xml format has plenty of binary data. They uuencode it so that it's official XML, but it's still encrypted or command content, not cleartext.
I've never seen binary code in any of the XML documents Office 2003 creates. Are you sure about that?
Written at this Slackers Guild article.
Shameless plug, but I'm proud.
Because blogs are just little public journals. Can you really call it "publishing" when you're just writing up your opinion on some hosted website?
That's like if I called YOU a stalker in a Slashdot post, and you sued me for it. It's ridiculous. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I could make a website called saddinosucks.com and write stuff about you, and it wouldn't matter because it's my own personal website that I'm doing myself. Now, if I started making money off insulting you, that could be another scenario.
One thing I've noticed about most of those elite pricks who praise simple text-editors as the "only" way to do HTML is that their websites are usually OSS or bio sites that have no color schemes (just black text on white background), one or two pages, no tables, and a few links scattered around. Mostly, their content is just paragraphs of text, and as a whole, the site is very generic and ugly. Have you seen www.gnu.org? People's obsession with simplicity and non-bloat (no doubt stemming from their obsessive Microsoft hatred) have made them produce sites that are uglier than crusted dog shit. For the most part, programmers and hackers are not good artistic designers, and it shows, and I think that's why it's taken so long for us to get a visual tool like this--the stupid "l33t" attitudes have kept it away.
If you're doing a heavy graphics-intensive site for a professional company in which things need to be perfectly aligned, graphics need to match, and you're using a visual template you created for all 20 of your pages, you'd be a complete idiot to continue your elite attitude about a freakin' text editor.
Sometimes, the immature attitudes I see in this community amaze me. No professionalism at all...is it also bad to use visual editors when you design GTK or QT dialogs? When you're drawing pictures in GIMP (real people write those pixels using assembly routines)? Should OpenOffice not show you its formatting visually, instead just giving you its internal formatting codes and letting you have at it?
I don't get the animosity towards WYSIWYG HTML editors when the philosophy is embraced everywhere else. Why are HTML editors the target for that misinformed attitude? It's not like HTML is l33t knowledge that deserves an award or anything. And all the visual editors let you edit the code directly anyway. "I use vim!" I don't really care. Give me a tool that lets me do more than freakin' ugly www.gnu.org without wasting time wading through code when I could be--heaven forbid--designing visually.
Frontpage 2003 doesn't generate code like that. It's completely clean.
In all fairness, Frontpage 2003 is a hugely revamped improvement over what they've usually put out. It actually generates clean code. So if you're not going to be doing PHP or things like that, it's actually a very viable solution.
Dreamweaver MX 2004 is incredibly good, but damn, it sucks up resources on my laptop, especially when I have a lot of cells in a table.
Sorry, but the name sucks! "Nvu?" Again, I have to complain about a ridiculous name for an OSS project. Why does this keep happening? Is there a sworn policy against normal, sane names in favor of awful-looking, unpronouncable in-jokes from the developers?
"I use Frontpage 2003!"
"I use...in-voo...nuh-voo...en-vee-you...fuck it, just trust me."
I doubt they expected anybody to notice or care when they fired him. They certainly didn't expect some Linux-biased site to find out and pick up the story, breathlessly claiming "Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo!" when they were just doing what was completely in their right for an employee breaking rules.
What's funny is, most Slashdotters love to rail against the media when they're sensationalistic and biased. Yet Slashdot does it everyday. "Microsoft Fires Mac Fan For Blog Photo." It's propoganda technique at its worst.
I couldn't help but see this on it.
Michael? What the hell happened?
You got trolled. If the word "daemon" is actually OFFENSIVE to you, you may as well not live, because everything will be offensive to you.
Exactly. People bitch about Microsoft building foundations and then trying to change them later on (i.e., security), but now they're trying to get input and feedback right from the start.
The official beta 1 of Longhorn is scheduled for next summer. As Paul Thurrott of Wininformant pointed out, this means it's entirely possible Longhorn could ship in 2005.
:P
It also means it's not vaporware, to you certain trolls out there.
Replacing the interface, replacing Win32, replacing the filesystem, replacing...I could go on.
For all you trolls bitching pointlessly about the sidebar (which is optional anyway), this is from the UI guidelines page. which nicely describes what the sidebar is for:
"The sidebar will be most useful to users with large monitors who will have the space available to keep the sidebar open all the time. Users with small monitors will usually keep the sidebar minimized. When the sidebar is minimized, all sidebar tiles will have an icon in the taskbar; clicking an icon lets the user access the related tile."
In other words, it's not a big deal, and it won't take up your space. I think it's silly to react this way about an optional sidebar, when probably at least 80% of you run gkrellm and whatever other sidebar apps exist for the Linux desktop environment. This is just Microsoft's XML-based version of that concept (now comes the "they're stealing ideas again" replies).
Kind of reminds me of when Red Hat dared change their desktop theme, and all the knee-jerk Slashdotters flamed them to hell for absolutely no reason. Then it turned out not to be a big deal after all.
Where is even the slightest bit of objectivity these days?
To be fair, the only reason Slashdot keeps posting these Microsoft articles (count 'em...at least three in the past two DAYS!) is because all the Linux people have a field day bashing and bashing and bashing.
It's a really poor reflection on this community and makes it seem like they're just a bunch of trolls. Nobody can appreciate the technology anymore because it's "M$."
Could you imagine how nice this site would be if it was nothing but mature veteran UNIX hackers who calmly and rationally discussed the next version of Windows and how it fits into their computing paradigm? If it was just something they talked about (maybe even praised) and then moved on. Instead, we get "M$ IS CHANGING THEIR BSOD INTO 3D!!!1 HAHA" (+5 Funny)."
If anybody knows of a "News for Nerds" type site that doesn't have a corporate-owned agenda (*cough* Slashdot), could someone direct me to it?
Is Slashdot pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft? I'd rather see more Linux articles than Microsoft articles on the front page, so what happened that changed Slashdot into a Microsoft news site?
You don't ever explain what the "kicker" is.
.NET, Linux will try to implement Mono to keep up, and things will keep moving along as usual.
Longhorn will come out, everyone will move to
I think Microsoft succeeded. Hear of any holes for Windows 2003 Server other than that RPC bug that affected all Windows products? Red Hat introduces more security errata updates per week than Windows 2003 Server has had its entire life span.
Please. This is not Win98SE. You obviously have not read up on anything regarding Longhorn. I can't believe you got modded up by somebody.
.NET is what is replacing the Win32 library. Everything will be managed code, and as I hear, explorer.exe in the latest beta already is. Your next statement was confusing. I assume you thought there was some sort of confusion over what .NET is replacing, when everyone knows it's going to be the ancient Win32 API. Replace Windows? Huh? How could it replace itself?
.NET run-time? What on earth are you referring to? You seem to fancy yourself as some sort of psychic, predicting what "Microsoft will do" three years down the road.
...but if you still launch 200 processes you still see random failures from CreateProcess. (Never tried it, have you?)
Longhorn is a yawn, a client-only release.
Nope, there is a server version planned.
WinFS was supposed to replace NTFS.
No, it wasn't. Slashdot reported that it was supposed to, but that was false. A little reading, and people would have figured that out.
Now it's just gonna be IMDB (in-memory database) which was stripped from Win2000 at the last minute file-system filter driver, which will be used by Explorer.
What FUD! WinFS never existed in Windows 2000 and was never stripped at the last minute.
Neat, but isn't gonna change your business.
Uh, it's sure gonna be nice when I'll be able to search my 100+ GB hard drive for everything from contacts to e-mails in one window.
The shell theme will change.
The entire interface will change. It will be replaced with a DirectX accelerated photorealistic interface called Aero. Not only will visual cues be enhanced and smoother, but resolution-independent window resizing will exist so that no matter how high your resolution is, widgets remain the same size. This will extend to older applications as well.
The most interesting development, Avalon, will attempt to replace the Win32 api with managed code, *not* Windows.
Forms but a new client API. What'll end up happening by RTM is Microsoft will have written a great big propriatary app that you won't be able to use.
You're not even making sense. What big proprietary app? Are you talking about the
There will be minor kernel perf tweaks...
I guess you must be some Windows kernel engineer who magically obtained the source code to Longhorn.
Yes. Have you?