I've noticed that the ones who bash Microsoft the most happens to be the Samba folks. This is probably due to being frustrated at them. As Jeremy stated in the article, Microsoft's documentation does not always map to what the clients actually do. SGI came to my place of work and held a Linux Seminar, and they employ one of the Samba Team members (Herb Lewis) and he seemed very frustrated at having to deal with Microsoft. He told me that they would notify MS about something not matching the spec, then MS would go and look at the code, and come back saying "you're right" and then fix the spec. This is common with MS.
If anyone outside of MS has the most knowledge to how MS products work, it is probably the Samba team members. They are not given the luxury that MSCEs have in playing with the tools that manipulate SMB. They have to know exactly how it works. As Jeremy says, the specs are what comes across the wire. I have the utmost respect for the team, and I hope they keep up the good work. I do personally play with Samba, both at work and at home, and it definitely is a godsend.
I talked with Jeremy at Linux World in NY about solving the CR/LF issue. He told me to implement a version of this using the VFS. I have yet to get started (I'm working heavily on something else at the moment) but I'm hoping to try it later (possibly in the summer) even if somebody else gets to it first. I think it would be a great exercise in writing stuff with the VFS.
The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland
This is about registering the name in Switzerland. Where "Coke" may not be easily be assumed by a "reasonable person" to be a web site for the Coca Cola company. When I want to go to the web site for Coca-Cola, I will try http://www.coke.com and not coke.ch.
Now, I haven't heard, but is "Coke" registered as a Trade Mark in Switzerland to Coca-Cola. Doesn't Trade Marks only count for the countries that they are registered in?
I believe that this site is done in good faith. It is not another soft drink trying to pass off as Coke(tm). And it is not trying to cyber squat the domain. It seems to be a legit name for the country that it is being used in.
He added that the issue could lead to proprietary versions of Linux being developed.
Obvious that this person does not know much about Linux. Since everyone I know, knows that the GPL will prevent this.
This view seems to be more or less closed source advocates trying to bring a dead horse back to life, just to beat it a few more times.
A system is not easy to break just because you have source, Unless you have a bad system, where a cracker can see areas where buffer overflows exist. I was recently told by a Samba developer that there are several areas that buffer overflows exist in W2K. And this is just one of the ways crackers can break systems.
There is an actual organization that does Linux Certification called Sair Linux and GNU certification that handles Linux Certification in more of a broad sense. Although I believe that RedHat has their own certification and I believe that it is actually called RedHat Linux Certified instead of just being Linux Certified (read the Sair FAQ #1).
The purpose for having these certifications to allow for people to be "Labeled" as certified, so that companies may feel more comfortable about hiring someone. If you screw up and are certified, at least the one that employed you had an excuse to hire you, and my be able to save their @$$. Now this may not hold true if you are certified by "Joe Schmoe Linux Certification". You need to be certified by a recognizable source.
I agree that he exaggerated. But the point he made was clear. Windows 98 was nothing more than a patch to 95. Patches are good for desktops and applications, but don't try to sell them off as features.
Also, the previous comment suggested a moving target. I didn't think he was talking about patches to fix bugs, like Linux patches do. But changing of API. How many of you have programmed in VBA. We have had to rewrite several VBA apps everytime a new version of Excel would come out. Luckily, I don't write VB, but I work on a project that does. (I do the Unix side:)
Also, I feel sorry for anyone programming in Visual J++.
The reason this idea has become so unpopular lately is the time scale. The laws haven't caught up to Internet time at all.
This is a MAJOR problem. If I recall, a patent lasts for 17 years (I may be wrong and I'm sure I will be corrected if I am, and I don't have time to "check my facts"). This is an eternity in High Tech terms. So when you are given a patent in IT, you essentially have been given complete ownership of that idea. If everyone owns ideas, that we can no longer share, then innovation is out the window!
The most progress is done with free sharing of ideas. But everyone is complaining about how much effort it took them to get this idea and should be given a chance to make money from it. I agree you should, but that should only take about two years at most. The time of a patent for technologies should be dropped to two years. That's plenty of time to make money and it will then give a chance to enhance those ideas. With today's long term patents, by the time we can use the idea for free, it has essentially become obsolete.
Second problem, as everyone knows, is the process of patenting everything. As with the Amazon 1-click crap.
Now to get back on topic:
Apples patent on "design" is questionable. (Note, from the article, it looks like it's talking about trademarks, but I read other comments showing that Apple has indeed filed a patent) If it is really ergonomically good, then it may be ok to patent. Since it made progress in comfort, and probably did have a good amount of R&D. But I still think that patents should be shorten.
Now for Apple trademarking the design pattern, I have no problem with that. Trademarks are best for artistic designs of product identification. Of course I like the $20 Rolax I bought on the streets of NY;^)
I agree with you. I thought the same thing about "what if MS ports Office". But then I was thinking, "what can we do if they did." Now, I also sure that MS thought this, and thought about what might go wrong (well maybe). Say they did port Office for Linux, but a broken Office. Now RedHat refuses to install it, since it is not under GPL. Corel has their own suite so they don't install it. But maybe Caldera? or are they in with Applixware? So you have SuSE, Slackware, Mandrake. But they decide not to. Whose left? LinuxOne! They install it, but it's broken. Then it is discovered that they are not apart of the Linux Community, and all the bad things associated with Office just goes on top of LinuxOne.
That's not too bad of a scenario. How about this. Office is installed on most of the distributions. But it is broken. Then an e-mail is leaked that has one of the top guys at MS writing to Balmer about how to break Office on Linux. Here we go back to the DOJ.
Or what if we have a last ditch effort by Corel or Star Office to save themselves from MS. They open source their product completely. Now we have people trying Linux with the option of going to a fully open sourced Office suite.
The problem Microsoft has with Linux is that it will never go away. It's not like Netscape or Apple where you can destroy a company. But Linux is an OS that is free to the public and as long as someone is tinkering with it, it will always be a threat. MS has lots of resources, but it may be hard to fight against the rest of the world. As long as someone uses Linux, Linux will constantly show up as a competitor.
I completely agree with you. The problem with most laws come from "good intentions". I just watched 20/20 or was it Dateline, about how a good intentions law for the disabled is being abused by some to sue the pants off of small businesses. If you don't have a handicapped parking spot, you can be sued before you are even asked to make one.
Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that this law will have all the support because of "good intentions" but at the end really screw most of us. Yes, I have no doubt that this law will cater to propriety systems. I'm no history buff, but I wonder if this is how oppressive governments started out. Did Hitler convince people to do terrible things by using good intentions? The world of the Internet may be repeating the history of the real world. Laws will come out and suppress the masses using good intentions and then be used/abused by the government or their alliances (big business). I can see the trend where the laws start to favor propriety protocols and close the door on free speech.
Could the U.S. enforce a propriety protocol or subset that needs to be used to interact with companies in the States? I don't want to sound paranoid, but I've been told three times here on/. that "Only the Paranoid Survive", so now I'm paranoid. I like a previous posted comment that mentioned having an anonymous flag in the protocol that can be set to send anonymous data, but may also be cleared at the receiving end for those that don't want it. Like the way some phones work today. My brother has caller ID and if you block caller ID your call will not get through. This is basically the same thing. If you want to be anonymous, then you may only communicate with those that will take anonymous calls. This may not prevent DOS attacks, but it will certainly help against virus spreading. I believe this is the best solution because it is more or less self moderating. Kind of like/. comments. When ever you get someone else to moderate you have problems.
I already see the trend here. You will have the government and big business trying to control the Internet and moderate it for their own agendas. And then you will have rebels that will fight against it (like Cult of the Dead Cow and such). I don't belong to either side at the moment but I don't like the way it is heading. Lets follow the founding fathers of the U.S. and keep the Internet controlled by the people. We need a system that can let people police their own networks, and keep the government out.
Interesting article. My first tale of this story was back in my high school Spanish class. I took 4 years of Spanish, then went to Spain to learn that 4 years of high school Spanish doesn't cut it:-)
The story as I heard it, was that the car sold poorly. And as I remember (I'm sure there are enough Spanish speaking/. readers to correct me) is that "no va" may not be the most grammatically correct, but does actual translate to be "Doesn't go".
I have heard that GTK has been ported to Windows. What type of compiler did they use?
Also note, that you don't have to make it compatible with every compiler. You can use the one you are comfortable with but make sure you document it. As long as you supply the source code, and people like your product, you will find that someone else will port the source to another compiler that they use, maybe supplying #if #else #endif between the different compilers (I don't program in Windows, so I may be off in this statement).
As long as you supply both the source and binaries, then you should be set for people to use it. Windows is made for a binary only supply of a program. If someone notices a bug, they still have the option to view the source and report where the problem is without actually compiling it. Grant you, this will not be as popular as it is in the *nix domain, but it may still work.
Ok, if you don't have time, let me point out the paragraphs that relate to your post.
1. Naturally, you can write poor programs in any language. C++ is a powerful tool and in the wrong hands it can generate code that is *obviously* contorted and bloated. That may be preferable to the traditional spaghetti that poor programmers produce in C. Note that someone who is a good C programmer isn't automatically a good C++ programmer. Many problems have been caused by good C programmers assuming that they could adopt a semi-random collection of C++ language features and then magically become a good C++ programmer in a week
2. C++ supports powerful techniques that are at best weakly supported by C and learning these techniques takes time. C programmers might do well remembering how long it took them to become "master level" C programmers. I see no reason why it would take less time to become a "master level" C++ programmer.
3. Let me just mention something I wouldn't have done differently: compatibility. Had C not been there to be compatible with, I'd have chosen compatibility with some another language. Innovation should focus on improvements and what works should be left as unchanged as possible. That way, people keep their existing tools and techniques and can develop from a base that is functionally complete. Also it saves the effort to re-invent the wheel and to teach "new" stuff that is equivalent to old stuff. Thus, C++ is as close to C as possible - but no closer
Basically, he is saying: treat C++ as a new language but I will base it off of one that is familiar. It is a true language, as for Java, that doesn't scale. C++ is a lower level language that incorporates OOP but with lower overhead and still keeps the speed of C. Java is best for high level apps (or applets) and C++ is good for the real programs.
Since they have been showing snap shots for quite some time now, and have a developing team of 300 people that can download the source that is outside the snapshots (me included) I would be pretty amazed if a large hole is found now. A lot of us have been using it for a while now. I don't think you need to worry about this being the "final pre-release". It is now at a point that they are looking for the small bugs to clean up. They are not including any new features that will introduce new bugs.
So, in summary, it is safe to assume that 4.0 will be pretty stable. Well at least as stable as 3.3. And 4.0 is a new design, much more modular, so it is easier to debug and understand than the 3.3 code was.
I'm not a XFree86 developer, but I do subscribe to the XFree86 list, and download the latest sources when they are available. The 3.9.18 mainly contains a bunch of bug fixes, a few updates to documentation and some building fix ups.
Don't expect any new features that are not already there in 3.9, the team is working very hard to get 4.0 out the door and is concentrating on fixing any final bugs. I have been playing with it a little and it is almost (if not actually) ready. I don't seem to have any problems with it. I'm happy because of the built in Mesa and DRI support that lets you use the video acceleration in a window instead of full screen. So if your app crashes, you don't have to reboot to get your video back.
Ok, I don't know too much about the security of Windows machines, I mainly deal with Unix, but I do use NT and an old version of 95 inside a tight network.
How can someone connect to Active X from the outside? I understand how virus' work, but I have always thought that Windows 9x machines are pretty dumb at listening to the network. Is it possible to connect to a Windows box without having a trojan on it?
Now a poorly configured Unix box can easily be compromised. The worst thing someone can do is install RedHat on an open network with "Everything" clicked on and not go back and reconfigure the system to be more secure. I always recommend to install only enough to get the machine up and running, and then only install packages as you realize you need them. And always install the latest patches.
But I don't know how a Windows box can be compomised if the print and file sharing is turned off. I just told my father who runs Windows 98 without print and file sharing and is connected via cable, that he doesn't have much to worry about people cracking into his machine (except by email assistance). Was I wrong in telling him this. What can he do to correct himself? (He has too many apps that only run on Windows to suggest Linux/BSD).
Time to Service Pack the living daylights out of your WinBoxes.
Do I really have to? It is my home machine. I only use it for accounting. It is also behind a Linux firewall that I do keep up to date. I do NOT use it for email, so I do feel safe. Although I do use it to browse the web a litte, but I use Netscape 4.7.
I'd email you but you don't have your address posted.
I assume you're not running an unpatched '97 build of Linux.
Actually, I do. My laptop, which I only connect to my LAN when I download files from it, is an old Slackware distro that I installed with diskettes. The last update on it was to get my kernel to 2.0.35. But it follows the same as the Windows box: behind a firewall, don't browse the web or read email from it, yada yada yada.
It was not just one employee that did this, it was several. I even asked him if I can report this to the press, and he had no problems with it. Of course his identity will remain anonymous.
It would have been more believable if you signed in as a real user and did it as a lower level manager. I'm sure the CEO of Bell Atlantic has more things to do then to read/.
Actually I wouldn't think that those who are running the DOS apps know that they are. More likely, someone broke into their machines and installed it for them. The FBI would want the log files of those machines to help find the culprits that actually broke in. Of course if the cracker was good, he/she would have removed all traces of their mischief.
Last week in NYC, while riding the subway, I saw a gentleman reading a TCP/IP book. Being a Linux advocate, I approached him and asked if he was a network administrator and does he use Linux. He told me that he was, and that he works for a large company where the managers told him to stay a way from Linux and only use NT and OS/2. He continued to tell me that they would both go down every other day, until finally they had enough and the administrators (without telling the managers) installed Linux. Since then everything went smoothly. Their managers asked how they fixed the down time problems, and the admins are afraid to tell them. This is bad since the managers now think that NT is stable.
Asking for his business card, it is interesting to note that the company he works for is Bell Atlantic! And I'm sure that they are quite larger than your normal networking situation.
Also, while down there, I did not see any "Windows 2000" signs. It must have just started.
My version of Win 95 hasn't been updated since 1997. I did not have SMB active, or any other service, except for what AOL installed. I also don't have Active X. All in all, I was thinking to back when I first installed Win 95. So my thoughts about it being "secure" by network ignorance may no longer be valid.
Today I have Road Runner and a Linux firewall, and I have finally installed SMB to interact with my other Linux boxes using Samba. Even at my work, our Win 95 machines are pretty much network "dumb" and except for a few who share their "C:\" drive (users being network "dumb" in this case) most are not able to be spoken to.
While reading about how the distros are not making much money but VA is doing OK because it sells the computers too. Also thinking that Solaris, Apple and AIX all have easy installs, but that is because they own the hardware too. Then I though, gee, can't the hardware manufactures use Linux as their main OS and modify the kernel to suit their needs. Yes, this will become hairy when you down load a new kernel, but if the manufactures submit their changes (they have to reveal their code anyway) then it may not be a problem. This way we can go back to the old IBM philosophy about "Buying hardware not software" since all hardware will use Linux (grant you, this is futuristic since Windows is now the main OS). Linux could be the ultimate solution for hardware folks, not wanting to follow the crowd.
Yes, I know of the issues with this scenario, but I'm sure someone may be able to figure them out.
But this way HW manufactures can have more control of the software than they do now.
Port scans. There are tools that people use to continuously probe for machines that run various operating systems. Especially if you are a student and don't have a strong firewall. Crackers will break into the network and scan for users with various operating systems. If they find one that they know how to break, they'll do so. It's a lot like leaving your car in a dark parking lot without having a good security system. Thieves can break in within a matter of seconds. The same is true with crackers.
Some crackers are just script kiddies trying out there new/old tools/toys. Others are professionals that are testing their skills. Either way, its good to be prepared if you are on the net. Win 95 has poor connections (no daemons and such) and probably will not have a problem. But if you use NT, you better be careful. The default settings of RedHat are not very secure, and should be turned off. Did you select "Everything" on your install?
The best thing to do with a Linux distribution, is to install without any services. Then go back and only install the ones you use. At least you will know what you do and don't have.
At Linux World Expo, I talked to a few RedHat employees complaining about linuxconf. Its better than nothing, but I still want to know what it's doing. I gave a reference to AIX's SMIT, which shows you the command it will perform before it does it and afterwards. The reply I got was that linuxconf will probably go away for something new. So I guess that come 6.2 or 6.3 or even 7.0, look for something better than linuxconf.
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that the ones who bash Microsoft the most happens to be the Samba folks. This is probably due to being frustrated at them. As Jeremy stated in the article, Microsoft's documentation does not always map to what the clients actually do. SGI came to my place of work and held a Linux Seminar, and they employ one of the Samba Team members (Herb Lewis) and he seemed very frustrated at having to deal with Microsoft. He told me that they would notify MS about something not matching the spec, then MS would go and look at the code, and come back saying "you're right" and then fix the spec. This is common with MS.
If anyone outside of MS has the most knowledge to how MS products work, it is probably the Samba team members. They are not given the luxury that MSCEs have in playing with the tools that manipulate SMB. They have to know exactly how it works. As Jeremy says, the specs are what comes across the wire. I have the utmost respect for the team, and I hope they keep up the good work. I do personally play with Samba, both at work and at home, and it definitely is a godsend.
Steven Rostedt
I talked with Jeremy at Linux World in NY about solving the CR/LF issue. He told me to implement a version of this using the VFS. I have yet to get started (I'm working heavily on something else at the moment) but I'm hoping to try it later (possibly in the summer) even if somebody else gets to it first. I think it would be a great exercise in writing stuff with the VFS.
Steven Rostedt
Yes, but is it a trade mark in Switzerland?
Does anyone know?
Steven Rostedt
As stated in the article:
... and the words 'du pepsi' and 'du coca' are used for ordering soda such as Coca-Cola over there. So I registered 'coke' thinking that it was OK to use since the work coke doesn't refer to the Coca-Cola company over in Switzerland
The word 'coke' in French refers to the drug cocaine
This is about registering the name in Switzerland. Where "Coke" may not be easily be assumed by a "reasonable person" to be a web site for the Coca Cola company. When I want to go to the web site for Coca-Cola, I will try http://www.coke.com and not coke.ch.
Now, I haven't heard, but is "Coke" registered as a Trade Mark in Switzerland to Coca-Cola. Doesn't Trade Marks only count for the countries that they are registered in?
I believe that this site is done in good faith. It is not another soft drink trying to pass off as
Coke(tm). And it is not trying to cyber squat the domain. It seems to be a legit name for the country that it is being used in.
Steven Rostedt
He added that the issue could
lead to proprietary versions of Linux being developed.
Obvious that this person does not know much about Linux. Since everyone I know, knows that the GPL will prevent this.
This view seems to be more or less closed source advocates trying to bring a dead horse back to life, just to beat it a few more times.
A system is not easy to break just because you have source, Unless you have a bad system, where a cracker can see areas where buffer overflows exist. I was recently told by a Samba developer that there are several areas that buffer overflows exist in W2K. And this is just one of the ways crackers can break systems.
Steven Rostedt
There is an actual organization that does Linux Certification called Sair Linux and GNU certification that handles Linux Certification in more of a broad sense. Although I believe that RedHat has their own certification and I believe that it is actually called RedHat Linux Certified instead of just being Linux Certified (read the Sair FAQ #1).
The purpose for having these certifications to allow for people to be "Labeled" as certified, so that companies may feel more comfortable about hiring someone. If you screw up and are certified, at least the one that employed you had an excuse to hire you, and my be able to save their @$$. Now this may not hold true if you are certified by "Joe Schmoe Linux Certification". You need to be certified by a recognizable source.
Steven Rostedt
I agree that he exaggerated. But the point he made was clear. Windows 98 was nothing more than a patch to 95. Patches are good for desktops and applications, but don't try to sell them off as features.
:)
Also, the previous comment suggested a moving target. I didn't think he was talking about patches to fix bugs, like Linux patches do. But changing of API. How many of you have programmed in VBA. We have had to rewrite several VBA apps everytime a new version of Excel would come out. Luckily, I don't write VB, but I work on a project that does. (I do the Unix side
Also, I feel sorry for anyone programming in Visual J++.
Steven Rostedt
The reason this idea has become so unpopular lately is the time scale. The laws haven't caught up to Internet time at all.
;^)
This is a MAJOR problem. If I recall, a patent lasts for 17 years (I may be wrong and I'm sure I will be corrected if I am, and I don't have time to "check my facts"). This is an eternity in High Tech terms. So when you are given a patent in IT, you essentially have been given complete ownership of that idea. If everyone owns ideas, that we can no longer share, then innovation is out the window!
The most progress is done with free sharing of ideas. But everyone is complaining about how much effort it took them to get this idea and should be given a chance to make money from it. I agree you should, but that should only take about two years at most. The time of a patent for technologies should be dropped to two years. That's plenty of time to make money and it will then give a chance to enhance those ideas. With today's long term patents, by the time we can use the idea for free, it has essentially become obsolete.
Second problem, as everyone knows, is the process of patenting everything. As with the Amazon 1-click crap.
Now to get back on topic:
Apples patent on "design" is questionable. (Note, from the article, it looks like it's talking about trademarks, but I read other comments showing that Apple has indeed filed a patent) If it is really ergonomically good, then it may be ok to patent. Since it made progress in comfort, and probably did have a good amount of R&D. But I still think that patents should be shorten.
Now for Apple trademarking the design pattern, I have no problem with that. Trademarks are best for artistic designs of product identification. Of course I like the $20 Rolax I bought on the streets of NY
Steven Rostedt
I agree with you. I thought the same thing about "what if MS ports Office". But then I was thinking, "what can we do if they did." Now, I also sure that MS thought this, and thought about what might go wrong (well maybe). Say they did port Office for Linux, but a broken Office. Now RedHat refuses to install it, since it is not under GPL. Corel has their own suite so they don't install it. But maybe Caldera? or are they in with Applixware? So you have SuSE, Slackware, Mandrake. But they decide not to. Whose left? LinuxOne! They install it, but it's broken. Then it is discovered that they are not apart of the Linux Community, and all the bad things associated with Office just goes on top of LinuxOne.
That's not too bad of a scenario. How about this. Office is installed on most of the distributions. But it is broken. Then an e-mail is leaked that has one of the top guys at MS writing to Balmer about how to break Office on Linux. Here we go back to the DOJ.
Or what if we have a last ditch effort by Corel or Star Office to save themselves from MS. They open source their product completely. Now we have people trying Linux with the option of going to a fully open sourced Office suite.
The problem Microsoft has with Linux is that it will never go away. It's not like Netscape or Apple where you can destroy a company. But Linux is an OS that is free to the public and as long as someone is tinkering with it, it will always be a threat. MS has lots of resources, but it may be hard to fight against the rest of the world. As long as someone uses Linux, Linux will constantly show up as a competitor.
Steven Rostedt
I completely agree with you. The problem with most laws come from "good intentions". I just watched 20/20 or was it Dateline, about how a good intentions law for the disabled is being abused by some to sue the pants off of small businesses. If you don't have a handicapped parking spot, you can be sued before you are even asked to make one.
Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that this law will have all the support because of "good intentions" but at the end really screw most of us. Yes, I have no doubt that this law will cater to propriety systems. I'm no history buff, but I wonder if this is how oppressive governments started out. Did Hitler convince people to do terrible things by using good intentions? The world of the Internet may be repeating the history of the real world. Laws will come out and suppress the masses using good intentions and then be used/abused by the government or their alliances (big business). I can see the trend where the laws start to favor propriety protocols and close the door on free speech.
Could the U.S. enforce a propriety protocol or subset that needs to be used to interact with companies in the States? I don't want to sound paranoid, but I've been told three times here on
I already see the trend here. You will have the government and big business trying to control the Internet and moderate it for their own agendas. And then you will have rebels that will fight against it (like Cult of the Dead Cow and such). I don't belong to either side at the moment but I don't like the way it is heading. Lets follow the founding fathers of the U.S. and keep the Internet controlled by the people. We need a system that can let people police their own networks, and keep the government out.
Steven Rostedt
Interesting article. My first tale of this story was back in my high school Spanish class. I took 4 years of Spanish, then went to Spain to learn that 4 years of high school Spanish doesn't cut it :-)
/. readers to correct me) is that "no va" may not be the most grammatically correct, but does actual translate to be "Doesn't go".
The story as I heard it, was that the car sold poorly. And as I remember (I'm sure there are enough Spanish speaking
Steven Rostedt
I have heard that GTK has been ported to Windows. What type of compiler did they use?
Also note, that you don't have to make it compatible with every compiler. You can use the one you are comfortable with but make sure you document it. As long as you supply the source code, and people like your product, you will find that someone else will port the source to another compiler that they use, maybe supplying #if #else #endif between the different compilers (I don't program in Windows, so I may be off in this statement).
As long as you supply both the source and binaries, then you should be set for people to use it. Windows is made for a binary only supply of a program. If someone notices a bug, they still have the option to view the source and report where the problem is without actually compiling it. Grant you, this will not be as popular as it is in the *nix domain, but it may still work.
Steven Rostedt
Trademarks are compared *in English*
Ok, everyone remember the Nova incident in Spanish speaking countries?
Does this mean that I can't go around selling cars under a name of "Doesn't Go"? Or does that just describe the actions of the product?
:-)
Steven Rostedt
I'm sorry, but did you read the interview?
Ok, if you don't have time, let me point out the paragraphs that relate to your post.
1.
Naturally, you can write poor programs in any language. C++ is a powerful tool and in the wrong hands it can generate code that is *obviously* contorted and bloated. That may be preferable to the traditional spaghetti that poor programmers produce in C. Note that someone who is a good C programmer isn't automatically a good C++ programmer. Many problems have been caused by good C programmers assuming that they could adopt a semi-random collection of C++ language features and then magically become a good C++ programmer in a week
2.
C++ supports powerful techniques that are at best weakly supported by C and learning these techniques takes time. C programmers might do well remembering how long it took them to become "master level" C programmers. I see no reason why it would take less time to become a "master level" C++ programmer.
3.
Let me just mention something I wouldn't have done differently: compatibility. Had C not been there to be compatible with, I'd have chosen compatibility with some another language. Innovation should focus on improvements and what works should be left as unchanged as possible. That way, people keep their existing tools and techniques and can develop from a base that is functionally complete. Also it saves the effort to re-invent the wheel and to teach "new" stuff that is equivalent to old stuff. Thus, C++ is as close
to C as possible - but no closer
Basically, he is saying: treat C++ as a new language but I will base it off of one that is familiar. It is a true language, as for Java, that doesn't scale. C++ is a lower level language that incorporates OOP but with lower overhead and still keeps the speed of C. Java is best for high level apps (or applets) and C++ is good for the real programs.
Steven Rostedt
Since they have been showing snap shots for quite some time now, and have a developing team of 300 people that can download the source that is outside the snapshots (me included) I would be pretty amazed if a large hole is found now. A lot of us have been using it for a while now. I don't think you need to worry about this being the "final pre-release". It is now at a point that they are looking for the small bugs to clean up. They are not including any new features that will introduce new bugs.
So, in summary, it is safe to assume that 4.0 will be pretty stable. Well at least as stable as 3.3. And 4.0 is a new design, much more modular, so it is easier to debug and understand than the 3.3 code was.
Steven Rostedt
I'm not a XFree86 developer, but I do subscribe to the XFree86 list, and download the latest sources when they are available. The 3.9.18 mainly contains a bunch of bug fixes, a few updates to documentation and some building fix ups.
Don't expect any new features that are not already there in 3.9, the team is working very hard to get 4.0 out the door and is concentrating on fixing any final bugs. I have been playing with it a little and it is almost (if not actually) ready. I don't seem to have any problems with it. I'm happy because of the built in Mesa and DRI support that lets you use the video acceleration in a window instead of full screen. So if your app crashes, you don't have to reboot to get your video back.
Steven Rostedt
Ok, I don't know too much about the security of Windows machines, I mainly deal with Unix, but I do use NT and an old version of 95 inside a tight network.
How can someone connect to Active X from the outside? I understand how virus' work, but I have always thought that Windows 9x machines are pretty dumb at listening to the network. Is it possible to connect to a Windows box without having a trojan on it?
Now a poorly configured Unix box can easily be compromised. The worst thing someone can do is install RedHat on an open network with "Everything" clicked on and not go back and reconfigure the system to be more secure. I always recommend to install only enough to get the machine up and running, and then only install packages as you realize you need them. And always install the latest patches.
But I don't know how a Windows box can be compomised if the print and file sharing is turned off. I just told my father who runs Windows 98 without print and file sharing and is connected via cable, that he doesn't have much to worry about people cracking into his machine (except by email assistance). Was I wrong in telling him this. What can he do to correct himself? (He has too many apps that only run on Windows to suggest Linux/BSD).
Steven Rostedt
Time to Service Pack the living daylights out of your WinBoxes.
Do I really have to? It is my home machine. I only use it for accounting. It is also behind a Linux firewall that I do keep up to date. I do NOT use it for email, so I do feel safe. Although I do use it to browse the web a litte, but I use Netscape 4.7.
I'd email you but you don't have your address posted.
I assume you're not running an unpatched '97 build of Linux.
Actually, I do. My laptop, which I only connect to my LAN when I download files from it, is an old Slackware distro that I installed with diskettes. The last update on it was to get my kernel to 2.0.35. But it follows the same as the Windows box: behind a firewall, don't browse the web or read email from it, yada yada yada.
Steven Rostedt
Cute, but no cigar!
/.
It was not just one employee that did this, it was several. I even asked him if I can report this to the press, and he had no problems with it. Of course his identity will remain anonymous.
It would have been more believable if you signed in as a real user and did it as a lower level manager. I'm sure the CEO of Bell Atlantic has more things to do then to read
Steven Rostedt
Actually I wouldn't think that those who are running the DOS apps know that they are. More likely, someone broke into their machines and installed it for them. The FBI would want the log files of those machines to help find the culprits that actually broke in. Of course if the cracker was good, he/she would have removed all traces of their mischief.
Steven Rostedt
Last week in NYC, while riding the subway, I saw a gentleman reading a TCP/IP book. Being a Linux advocate, I approached him and asked if he was a network administrator and does he use Linux. He told me that he was, and that he works for a large company where the managers told him to stay a way from Linux and only use NT and OS/2. He continued to tell me that they would both go down every other day, until finally they had enough and the administrators (without telling the managers) installed Linux. Since then everything went smoothly. Their managers asked how they fixed the down time problems, and the admins are afraid to tell them. This is bad since the managers now think that NT is stable.
Asking for his business card, it is interesting to note that the company he works for is Bell Atlantic! And I'm sure that they are quite larger than your normal networking situation.
Also, while down there, I did not see any "Windows 2000" signs. It must have just started.
Steven Rostedt
My version of Win 95 hasn't been updated since 1997. I did not have SMB active, or any other service, except for what AOL installed. I also don't have Active X. All in all, I was thinking to back when I first installed Win 95. So my thoughts about it being "secure" by network ignorance may no longer be valid.
Today I have Road Runner and a Linux firewall, and I have finally installed SMB to interact with my other Linux boxes using Samba. Even at my work, our Win 95 machines are pretty much network "dumb" and except for a few who share their "C:\" drive (users being network "dumb" in this case) most are not able to be spoken to.
Steven Rostedt
While reading about how the distros are not making much money but VA is doing OK because it sells the computers too. Also thinking that Solaris, Apple and AIX all have easy installs, but that is because they own the hardware too. Then I though, gee, can't the hardware manufactures use Linux as their main OS and modify the kernel to suit their needs. Yes, this will become hairy when you down load a new kernel, but if the manufactures submit their changes (they have to reveal their code anyway) then it may not be a problem. This way we can go back to the old IBM philosophy about "Buying hardware not software" since all hardware will use Linux (grant you, this is futuristic since Windows is now the main OS). Linux could be the ultimate solution for hardware folks, not wanting to follow the crowd.
Yes, I know of the issues with this scenario, but I'm sure someone may be able to figure them out.
But this way HW manufactures can have more control of the software than they do now.
Just my 0.02
Steven Rostedt
Port scans. There are tools that people use to continuously probe for machines that run various operating systems. Especially if you are a student and don't have a strong firewall. Crackers will break into the network and scan for users with various operating systems. If they find one that they know how to break, they'll do so. It's a lot like leaving your car in a dark parking lot without having a good security system. Thieves can break in within a matter of seconds. The same is true with crackers.
Some crackers are just script kiddies trying out there new/old tools/toys. Others are professionals that are testing their skills. Either way, its good to be prepared if you are on the net. Win 95 has poor connections (no daemons and such) and probably will not have a problem. But if you use NT, you better be careful. The default settings of RedHat are not very secure, and should be turned off. Did you select "Everything" on your install?
The best thing to do with a Linux distribution, is to install without any services. Then go back and only install the ones you use. At least you will know what you do and don't have.
Steven Rostedt
At Linux World Expo, I talked to a few RedHat employees complaining about linuxconf. Its better than nothing, but I still want to know what it's doing. I gave a reference to AIX's SMIT, which shows you the command it will perform before it does it and afterwards. The reply I got was that linuxconf will probably go away for something new. So I guess that come 6.2 or 6.3 or even 7.0, look for something better than linuxconf.
Steven Rostedt