From looking at "twitters" postings I believe he is a fake poster trying to make OSS supporters look stupid. His arguments are illogical and he makes obviously false claims about Linux. I suspect that is why he prominantly puts "M$ junk" into his signature, in an attempt to associate the M$ combination with more silly stuff like the word "junk".
Would like to see a response that says "Saying Windoze is really childish" where the original post is something similar to these M$ ones where it is some argument and NO other insulting words are used other than "Windoze". I see literally dozens of instant "Saying M$ is childish" responses no matter what the wording is. I believe this is due to denial on the posters part that the M$ abbreviation is in common use. Besides, if it really was childish, why point it out?
And "Emm Ess" is certainly confused, as that is EXACTLY what the disease Multiple Sclerosis was called. When seen in the context of a state, people do not read "emm ess", they read "Missisippi", but when reading a post about Microsoft with the letters MS they read "emm ess". You are obviously too young to have been bombarded ENDLESSLY with these adds, believe me the identification is quite deeply programmed into me and I suspect many other people.
I literally would not care if somebody wrote O$$ instead of OSS. I see a HUGE difference between that and "open sores".
M$ is a very concise and obvious abbreviation and the dollar sign even looks a bit like an s and t printed atop each other and pronounces when read quickly the same. And anybody over 30 was exposed to "Jerry's kids" commercials when they were a child and "MS" means Multiple Sclerosis. I am NOT joking, that is a fact. Really would Microsoft rather be associated with money or a crippling childhood disease?
And I literally see ZERO responses if somebody says "microsucks" or the much more common "windoze". But every single time somebody says "M$" the response is there almost instantly. I think the problem is that they really are hurt by this, while they are not hurt by obviously childish things, that (like "open sores") actually make the poster look stupid. They are hurt because "M$" does NOT make the poster look stupid so they attempt to deny that perception and claim it *does* make the poster look stupid by immediately making this response.
I think also if you check my posting history you will see that I write "Microsoft" mostly. I used to write "MicroSoft" because I really thought that was the proper name, until somebody here complained that I was posting a grave insult to the beloved company...
Why did you use the initials of Multiple Sclerosis in your post?
There appears to be two insults that Microsoft supporters cannot stand.
Number one is to use a dollar sign. Somebody already did that above, and it immediately generated the "I am rubber you are glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" comment that it always gets.
Number two is to capitalize the S. This appears to remind them that their original name was two words. I have certainly been told off for writing "MicroSoft" because I believed it was the correct name. Therefore the initials "MS" are incorrect. Besides they really are already in common use for Multiple Sclerosis, as anybody over the age of 30 would tell you.
My recommendation is to always write "Microsoft". Or write "microsucks" or something, for some reason that never generates the blathering "oh you are so stupid because you put a dollur sign in dood" responses.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Aww I hurt your feelings by insulting your beloved Microsoft.
Really, that predictable result from the fanboys every time somebody says M$ really shows that they are hurt by this. I notice nobody seems to say anything if somebody writes "microsucks" or "winblows". But gosh, if you put that dollar sign in, they act like their mother has been insulted! Awww, boo hoo!
Shouldn't these numbers be multiplied instead of summed?
No, because you could make just as much of a claim that you can multiply the 6 numbers provided by 2 rgb pixels, or the 12 numbers provided by 4 rgb pixels, or that if you multiply every pixel on the screen you end up with an astronomically large number of possible colors. Basically if you say that dithering does not count, you must also say that there are 3 times as many pixels, each of which is only producing shades of red or green or blue, and thus the total number of colors is this sum.
If you look closely enough you will see THREE pixels, one red, one green, one blue. Each of these (on an actual 8-bit screen) can display 255 different shades of their color, plus black. 255red + 255green + 255blue + 1black = 766 different colors.
This in fact is the only way to count the colors if you want to claim that dithering does not count. (Conversely if you do count dithering you could claim that the screen can display an astronomical number of colors, if viewed from so far away that the entire display looks like a single dot)
However the 6-bit screen only puts out 63+63+63+1 = 190 different colors. Thus you could still claim the number of colors is 75% less.
OOXML would make a fairly crappy standard. However, its used by the vast majority of the people in the world.
I think you are confusing OOXML and Microsoft.doc file format?
its 'A Good Thing' that ODF exists. Because it puts competitive pressure on companies like Microsoft. ODF being present probably wont sway most companies, they'll still buy MS Office. But it gives them a stick to use against MS and other companies. With it, you can always leave. This helps keep companies like that more honest and competitive than they would be otherwise.
You can't "leave" unless you can take your documents with you. If Microsoft refuses to write ODF or any other format that you can take, you are locked in.
Far too many people think this is Microsoft trying to stop Open Office. This is nonsense, Microsoft does not give one shit about Open Office as it's impact on their sales is trivial or non-existent. What Microsoft is in mortal fear of is that they will have to write their saved files in ODF, which means they will allow thousands of third-party programs, not just the little Open Office, and they will remove the ability to force casual users to install a pirated copy of Word to read their email.
The Windows and Linux were not running on identical hardware?
That is a bit suspicious. It should have been easy to make the value of the two pieces of hardware identical so a question like this does not come up.
Obviously the Apple one is harder to match.
I would very much suspect this Flash hole is cross-platform. It sounds like they got flash itself to read and return the file, not that they got it to execute some other program that did the work. Maybe the file was in the right place on the Windows machine.
Also there are some informed comments above about how the new Vista IE runs with seteuid(), something that really Firefox should do on Linux, but that Flash found a way around that, apparently by installing and auto-executing another process that had the rights to do things and to talk to the flash plugin (unless there is a bug in their seteuid and flash could execute such a process directly, but I don't think Microsoft would make such a stupid mistake). In any case really this should be disallowed, and all the other platforms and Firefox on Windows should at least try to do this as well. A bug that can wipe out my home directory is almost as bad as one that can take over the machine.
Furthermore ODF referse to another ISO specification to define what "Hijri" means.
And I just tried using the word "Hijri" and that all-so-wonderful list of countries to find out what Hijri means. Guess what: it was INSTANTANEOUS for the word "hijri". A search with that list of countries found a lot of stuff about oil and wars but failed to find a single pointer to how they do their calendar.
Your only concrete example is that one of them says what contries "Hijri" is used in and ODF does not?
That might explain some of the 6000 pages that they manage to use about 40 times as many letters to say the same thing by adding words like "specifies that the" and "shall be uesd" and a list of countries that serves ZERO purpose in figuring out what "Hijri" means.
I grant you that ODF is probably a horrible format, but it is obvious that OXML is much much worse.
#1 is a sort of recursive problem as the suppliers are not allowing the code to be released for the same reason. Most likely it circles right around into a loop so it is impossible for anybody to make a decision to allow code to be published. For others saying they should print the stuff they can, I think the amount of work needed to extract the code they own is very significant, also the result will not compile or work, which will probably defeat most advantages of having published code.
#2 and #3 are outwitted by reverse engineering. Having copyrighted code available would make them more likely to be able to stop a competitor because you could claim they are violating the copyright.
#4 (revealing patent infringements) is by far the main reason. And copyright violations, there is likely code stolen from competitors, or GPL or other copyrighted code (not offically stolen, but copied in by employees who are just trying to get their job done).
#5 (liabilities) are easily worked around by including the necessary NDA (unless you are talking about copyright violations which I more put under #4).
Actually, I quite like that. If you edit it and save for Word 97 then the changes in formatting will most likely be lost if they can't be expressed in Word 97 terms. But I think that's sort of OK.
Actually it would be preserved if the editor did not delete the token and the resulting text could still be reasonably back-converted. A program that thinks it's important to back-convert could recognize the token and refuse to make incompatable changes to the text unless the "SpacingLikeWord95" is removed first. In neither case are things worse than they are currently.
support for legacy attributes. ODF doesn't have this and OOXML does.
I was under the impression that ODF does have an official method, called "styles" for some unknown reason, by which an application can imbed extra information into the document that other applications know it is ok to ignore.
I have no idea if OOXML has that, but since the examples claim the keyword is "SpacingLikeWord95" or whatever, there does not appear to be any kind of common prefix or other method of deciding if a token can be ignored. But perhaps there is such data, and it could be used if my idea above is used.
In any case I think both should define a clear unambigous method of saying "this unknown attribute is applied to this block but it has no effect on how it should be rendered, so it is ok to ignore it". There may be questions about namespaces for the attribute, but prefixing it clearly with the product, such as "MicrosoftOffice:FooBlah" would work.
So it's third party code that gets confused by OO's xls files, not MS Office.
Well that's reverse-engineering for you. Open Office probably tested things by trying to get MS Office to open their output, and when it worked they could not do anything more. GMail probably tried to open MS Office output, and when that worked they were done. Open Office did not think to try to make GMail open their output, and GMail did not think to try to open Open Office's output. And you get exactly the result you see. This is why
And if you want something that allows you to convert a current MS Office document to it and convert back without loss of formatting, that something needs a way to store all the legacy attributes.
Yes you do need a way to store the legacy attribute. But that does not mean that is the *only* way that infomation is stored. Here is a sample of how to store "SpacingLikeWord95" in ODF:
<Style:Microsoft SpacingLikeWord95=true>
<ODF-command to make it act like SpacingLikeWord95>
Text, perhaps with more odf commands between the words, to duplicate SpacingLikeWord95 using only stuff in the standard.
<\ODF-command>
<\Style:Microsoft>
Note: I have no idea of the syntax but under the impression that ODF allows arbitrary data to be inserted in something called "styles".
A Microsoft product can back-convert this. It does it by recognizing the special attribute, and that causes it to strip out the special ODF commands that repliate the spacing and thus restore the text to it's original state. A non-Microsoft product can display this correctly by ignoring the Microsoft specific commands.
1) Rework Office to support ODF. In this case, they would lose vendor lock-in and they would also have to catch up to the implementations of others. For a few years, I guess Open Office would look a lot better than MS office because they have a head start with ODF.
I disagree with this.
If Microsoft would stop this childish plot, they could probably implement ODF import/export in a few days (they probably have it already written, actually).
Microsoft Office is acknoledged as being the best one out there, even by competitors. It is not just lock-in that keeps it being the most-used software. The difficulty in reproducing or bettering their user interface and editing features must dwarf the work needed to read/write ODF by a factor of hundreds. They also hold copyrights on user interface aspects that a millon users are used to and this keeps users on their software without any technical lockin such as a file format.
Microsofts problem is that they just cannot see the tiniest loss of control as being acceptable. This OOXML scheme is such a blindingly obvious pack of lies and deceit, and extremely expensive compared to paying perhaps 2 geeks to program ODF import/export, that their behavior is illogical. They are losing money on this. Their shareholders should be complaining. Everybody should, since if they succeed it will destroy a lot of people, and will have cost Microsoft far more than they will have gained. They are also acting like they distrust the superiority of one of their best products, which is not going to inspire confidence in them for future products!
The Kerberos thing is that a Microsoft desktop could not use a non-Microsoft server, because it required these "vendor specific fields" to be filled in.
If you can point me at an actual document that literally says in a clear an unambiguous way that an unmodified Microsoft desktop was able to use software not written by Microsoft on a non-Microsoft server for Kerberos authentication, I would believe you. Please point me at it. Otherwise go spew your lies elsewhere.
The "hole" in the memory was not due to MSDOS, it was due to IBM's hardware design. And the hole *started* at 640k. The 8086 could address 1 megabyte and if you made a machine with no memory-mapped hardware and populated with 1 megabyte, MSDOS could use all of it.
Personally I feel Microsoft did pretty well with MSDOS 2, which was made remarkably quickly and jettisoned most of the worst CP/M stuff and replaced it with Unix designs (stream style read/write calls and they added a hierarchial file system). The only useful and technically possible addition that they failed to do was add escape sequences to the i/o (which would have seriously changed how BBS's and the Internet eventually worked, and made it much less necessary to make IBM "clones").
After MSDOS 2 however things went downhill very fast and I quickly started to HATE Microsoft. We were going into the dark ages and the very hard work of many very smart people such as K&R was going to be lost to the dustbin of history, which made me sad and angry.
Huh? Vista may be a failure, but I can assure you that the "winner" is then XP. That is also a piece of software sold by Microsoft, in case you forgot.
Re:autoSpaceLikeWord95 and useWord97LineBreakRules
on
India Votes Against OOXML
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But what would you suggest that should be done with this information?
They should convert that information into the equivalent representation in their new format. Replacement of specific spaces with hard breaks or forced non-breaks or whatever will cause the resulting document to print exactly the same and would not require this stuff.
This puts all the ugly part of implementing this information into the program that is reading the.doc format, rather into this "standard". Microsoft could even keep it secret if they wanted...
Well it kind of encouraged me to upgrade as there was a button to do that in the update manager... And I know installing would be more of a pain as I have to back up the main disk, and I would have to burn an install CD.
For me Feisty worked great, though I did install it from a CD. I was very pleased to see that suspend worked and really shut the machine off, and the wireless worked great too. I think hibernate never worked, though, and the wireless would sometimes not work after suspend (but suspend and wake again would fix it).
I do have suspend working now but it is not coming back anywhere near as fast as it used to. The screen turns on, then off, then back on, indicating that it is perhaps restarting the X server? I am running the evil Nvidia closed-source driver, but except for suspend it works great (in particular it kept working after the upgrade, I don't know if you downloaded a new one or the old one just continued working). It also looks like hibernate works on this version. Also looks like wireless fails after suspend, I hadn't checked that before, sigh...
Slashdot Mirror
From looking at "twitters" postings I believe he is a fake poster trying to make OSS supporters look stupid. His arguments are illogical and he makes obviously false claims about Linux. I suspect that is why he prominantly puts "M$ junk" into his signature, in an attempt to associate the M$ combination with more silly stuff like the word "junk".
Would like to see a response that says "Saying Windoze is really childish" where the original post is something similar to these M$ ones where it is some argument and NO other insulting words are used other than "Windoze". I see literally dozens of instant "Saying M$ is childish" responses no matter what the wording is. I believe this is due to denial on the posters part that the M$ abbreviation is in common use. Besides, if it really was childish, why point it out?
And "Emm Ess" is certainly confused, as that is EXACTLY what the disease Multiple Sclerosis was called. When seen in the context of a state, people do not read "emm ess", they read "Missisippi", but when reading a post about Microsoft with the letters MS they read "emm ess". You are obviously too young to have been bombarded ENDLESSLY with these adds, believe me the identification is quite deeply programmed into me and I suspect many other people.
I literally would not care if somebody wrote O$$ instead of OSS. I see a HUGE difference between that and "open sores".
M$ is a very concise and obvious abbreviation and the dollar sign even looks a bit like an s and t printed atop each other and pronounces when read quickly the same. And anybody over 30 was exposed to "Jerry's kids" commercials when they were a child and "MS" means Multiple Sclerosis. I am NOT joking, that is a fact. Really would Microsoft rather be associated with money or a crippling childhood disease?
And I literally see ZERO responses if somebody says "microsucks" or the much more common "windoze". But every single time somebody says "M$" the response is there almost instantly. I think the problem is that they really are hurt by this, while they are not hurt by obviously childish things, that (like "open sores") actually make the poster look stupid. They are hurt because "M$" does NOT make the poster look stupid so they attempt to deny that perception and claim it *does* make the poster look stupid by immediately making this response.
I think also if you check my posting history you will see that I write "Microsoft" mostly. I used to write "MicroSoft" because I really thought that was the proper name, until somebody here complained that I was posting a grave insult to the beloved company...
Why did you use the initials of Multiple Sclerosis in your post?
There appears to be two insults that Microsoft supporters cannot stand.
Number one is to use a dollar sign. Somebody already did that above, and it immediately generated the "I am rubber you are glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" comment that it always gets.
Number two is to capitalize the S. This appears to remind them that their original name was two words. I have certainly been told off for writing "MicroSoft" because I believed it was the correct name. Therefore the initials "MS" are incorrect. Besides they really are already in common use for Multiple Sclerosis, as anybody over the age of 30 would tell you.
My recommendation is to always write "Microsoft". Or write "microsucks" or something, for some reason that never generates the blathering "oh you are so stupid because you put a dollur sign in dood" responses.
M$ M$ M$ M$!!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha. Aww I hurt your feelings by insulting your beloved Microsoft.
Really, that predictable result from the fanboys every time somebody says M$ really shows that they are hurt by this. I notice nobody seems to say anything if somebody writes "microsucks" or "winblows". But gosh, if you put that dollar sign in, they act like their mother has been insulted! Awww, boo hoo!
M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$!!!!!!
Thank the original parent article for this idea, it was not mine. I thought he was wrong at first as well, but after some thought I agree with him.
Shouldn't these numbers be multiplied instead of summed?
No, because you could make just as much of a claim that you can multiply the 6 numbers provided by 2 rgb pixels, or the 12 numbers provided by 4 rgb pixels, or that if you multiply every pixel on the screen you end up with an astronomically large number of possible colors. Basically if you say that dithering does not count, you must also say that there are 3 times as many pixels, each of which is only producing shades of red or green or blue, and thus the total number of colors is this sum.
If you look closely enough you will see THREE pixels, one red, one green, one blue. Each of these (on an actual 8-bit screen) can display 255 different shades of their color, plus black. 255red + 255green + 255blue + 1black = 766 different colors.
This in fact is the only way to count the colors if you want to claim that dithering does not count. (Conversely if you do count dithering you could claim that the screen can display an astronomical number of colors, if viewed from so far away that the entire display looks like a single dot)
However the 6-bit screen only puts out 63+63+63+1 = 190 different colors. Thus you could still claim the number of colors is 75% less.
OOXML would make a fairly crappy standard. However, its used by the vast majority of the people in the world.
.doc file format?
I think you are confusing OOXML and Microsoft
its 'A Good Thing' that ODF exists. Because it puts competitive pressure on companies like Microsoft. ODF being present probably wont sway most companies, they'll still buy MS Office. But it gives them a stick to use against MS and other companies. With it, you can always leave. This helps keep companies like that more honest and competitive than they would be otherwise.
You can't "leave" unless you can take your documents with you. If Microsoft refuses to write ODF or any other format that you can take, you are locked in.
Far too many people think this is Microsoft trying to stop Open Office. This is nonsense, Microsoft does not give one shit about Open Office as it's impact on their sales is trivial or non-existent. What Microsoft is in mortal fear of is that they will have to write their saved files in ODF, which means they will allow thousands of third-party programs, not just the little Open Office, and they will remove the ability to force casual users to install a pirated copy of Word to read their email.
The Windows and Linux were not running on identical hardware?
That is a bit suspicious. It should have been easy to make the value of the two pieces of hardware identical so a question like this does not come up.
Obviously the Apple one is harder to match.
I would very much suspect this Flash hole is cross-platform. It sounds like they got flash itself to read and return the file, not that they got it to execute some other program that did the work. Maybe the file was in the right place on the Windows machine.
Also there are some informed comments above about how the new Vista IE runs with seteuid(), something that really Firefox should do on Linux, but that Flash found a way around that, apparently by installing and auto-executing another process that had the rights to do things and to talk to the flash plugin (unless there is a bug in their seteuid and flash could execute such a process directly, but I don't think Microsoft would make such a stupid mistake). In any case really this should be disallowed, and all the other platforms and Firefox on Windows should at least try to do this as well. A bug that can wipe out my home directory is almost as bad as one that can take over the machine.
"no one uses Linux on the desktop"
BZZZT! Wrong. I have proof that at least one person uses Linux on the desktop. Unless maybe I am a figment of your fertile imagination.
Translation: "sandbox mode" == "seteuid"
For some reason, Windows users feel happy after they fix their computer, not pissed.
I think that is true for Linux and Macintosh as well
Furthermore ODF referse to another ISO specification to define what "Hijri" means.
And I just tried using the word "Hijri" and that all-so-wonderful list of countries to find out what Hijri means. Guess what: it was INSTANTANEOUS for the word "hijri". A search with that list of countries found a lot of stuff about oil and wars but failed to find a single pointer to how they do their calendar.
You have got to be kidding.
Your only concrete example is that one of them says what contries "Hijri" is used in and ODF does not?
That might explain some of the 6000 pages that they manage to use about 40 times as many letters to say the same thing by adding words like "specifies that the" and "shall be uesd" and a list of countries that serves ZERO purpose in figuring out what "Hijri" means.
I grant you that ODF is probably a horrible format, but it is obvious that OXML is much much worse.
I think #1 and #4 are the real reasons.
#1 is a sort of recursive problem as the suppliers are not allowing the code to be released for the same reason. Most likely it circles right around into a loop so it is impossible for anybody to make a decision to allow code to be published. For others saying they should print the stuff they can, I think the amount of work needed to extract the code they own is very significant, also the result will not compile or work, which will probably defeat most advantages of having published code.
#2 and #3 are outwitted by reverse engineering. Having copyrighted code available would make them more likely to be able to stop a competitor because you could claim they are violating the copyright.
#4 (revealing patent infringements) is by far the main reason. And copyright violations, there is likely code stolen from competitors, or GPL or other copyrighted code (not offically stolen, but copied in by employees who are just trying to get their job done).
#5 (liabilities) are easily worked around by including the necessary NDA (unless you are talking about copyright violations which I more put under #4).
Actually, I quite like that. If you edit it and save for Word 97 then the changes in formatting will most likely be lost if they can't be expressed in Word 97 terms. But I think that's sort of OK.
Actually it would be preserved if the editor did not delete the token and the resulting text could still be reasonably back-converted. A program that thinks it's important to back-convert could recognize the token and refuse to make incompatable changes to the text unless the "SpacingLikeWord95" is removed first. In neither case are things worse than they are currently.
support for legacy attributes. ODF doesn't have this and OOXML does.
I was under the impression that ODF does have an official method, called "styles" for some unknown reason, by which an application can imbed extra information into the document that other applications know it is ok to ignore.
I have no idea if OOXML has that, but since the examples claim the keyword is "SpacingLikeWord95" or whatever, there does not appear to be any kind of common prefix or other method of deciding if a token can be ignored. But perhaps there is such data, and it could be used if my idea above is used.
In any case I think both should define a clear unambigous method of saying "this unknown attribute is applied to this block but it has no effect on how it should be rendered, so it is ok to ignore it". There may be questions about namespaces for the attribute, but prefixing it clearly with the product, such as "MicrosoftOffice:FooBlah" would work.
So it's third party code that gets confused by OO's xls files, not MS Office.
Well that's reverse-engineering for you. Open Office probably tested things by trying to get MS Office to open their output, and when it worked they could not do anything more. GMail probably tried to open MS Office output, and when that worked they were done. Open Office did not think to try to make GMail open their output, and GMail did not think to try to open Open Office's output. And you get exactly the result you see. This is why
And if you want something that allows you to convert a current MS Office document to it and convert back without loss of formatting, that something needs a way to store all the legacy attributes.
Yes you do need a way to store the legacy attribute. But that does not mean that is the *only* way that infomation is stored. Here is a sample of how to store "SpacingLikeWord95" in ODF:
<Style:Microsoft SpacingLikeWord95=true>
<ODF-command to make it act like SpacingLikeWord95>
Text, perhaps with more odf commands between the words, to duplicate SpacingLikeWord95 using only stuff in the standard.
<\ODF-command>
<\Style:Microsoft>
Note: I have no idea of the syntax but under the impression that ODF allows arbitrary data to be inserted in something called "styles".
A Microsoft product can back-convert this. It does it by recognizing the special attribute, and that causes it to strip out the special ODF commands that repliate the spacing and thus restore the text to it's original state. A non-Microsoft product can display this correctly by ignoring the Microsoft specific commands.
Since your result is *exactly* the same situation as we are in today, it would seem that there is no problem at all with OOXML failing.
1) Rework Office to support ODF. In this case, they would lose vendor lock-in and they would also have to catch up to the implementations of others. For a few years, I guess Open Office would look a lot better than MS office because they have a head start with ODF.
I disagree with this.
If Microsoft would stop this childish plot, they could probably implement ODF import/export in a few days (they probably have it already written, actually).
Microsoft Office is acknoledged as being the best one out there, even by competitors. It is not just lock-in that keeps it being the most-used software. The difficulty in reproducing or bettering their user interface and editing features must dwarf the work needed to read/write ODF by a factor of hundreds. They also hold copyrights on user interface aspects that a millon users are used to and this keeps users on their software without any technical lockin such as a file format.
Microsofts problem is that they just cannot see the tiniest loss of control as being acceptable. This OOXML scheme is such a blindingly obvious pack of lies and deceit, and extremely expensive compared to paying perhaps 2 geeks to program ODF import/export, that their behavior is illogical. They are losing money on this. Their shareholders should be complaining. Everybody should, since if they succeed it will destroy a lot of people, and will have cost Microsoft far more than they will have gained. They are also acting like they distrust the superiority of one of their best products, which is not going to inspire confidence in them for future products!
The Kerberos thing is that a Microsoft desktop could not use a non-Microsoft server, because it required these "vendor specific fields" to be filled in.
If you can point me at an actual document that literally says in a clear an unambiguous way that an unmodified Microsoft desktop was able to use software not written by Microsoft on a non-Microsoft server for Kerberos authentication, I would believe you. Please point me at it. Otherwise go spew your lies elsewhere.
The "hole" in the memory was not due to MSDOS, it was due to IBM's hardware design. And the hole *started* at 640k. The 8086 could address 1 megabyte and if you made a machine with no memory-mapped hardware and populated with 1 megabyte, MSDOS could use all of it.
Personally I feel Microsoft did pretty well with MSDOS 2, which was made remarkably quickly and jettisoned most of the worst CP/M stuff and replaced it with Unix designs (stream style read/write calls and they added a hierarchial file system). The only useful and technically possible addition that they failed to do was add escape sequences to the i/o (which would have seriously changed how BBS's and the Internet eventually worked, and made it much less necessary to make IBM "clones").
After MSDOS 2 however things went downhill very fast and I quickly started to HATE Microsoft. We were going into the dark ages and the very hard work of many very smart people such as K&R was going to be lost to the dustbin of history, which made me sad and angry.
I'm pretty certain that post was a joke. You might want to read it again.
Huh? Vista may be a failure, but I can assure you that the "winner" is then XP. That is also a piece of software sold by Microsoft, in case you forgot.
But what would you suggest that should be done with this information?
.doc format, rather into this "standard". Microsoft could even keep it secret if they wanted...
They should convert that information into the equivalent representation in their new format. Replacement of specific spaces with hard breaks or forced non-breaks or whatever will cause the resulting document to print exactly the same and would not require this stuff.
This puts all the ugly part of implementing this information into the program that is reading the
Well it kind of encouraged me to upgrade as there was a button to do that in the update manager... And I know installing would be more of a pain as I have to back up the main disk, and I would have to burn an install CD.
For me Feisty worked great, though I did install it from a CD. I was very pleased to see that suspend worked and really shut the machine off, and the wireless worked great too. I think hibernate never worked, though, and the wireless would sometimes not work after suspend (but suspend and wake again would fix it).
I do have suspend working now but it is not coming back anywhere near as fast as it used to. The screen turns on, then off, then back on, indicating that it is perhaps restarting the X server? I am running the evil Nvidia closed-source driver, but except for suspend it works great (in particular it kept working after the upgrade, I don't know if you downloaded a new one or the old one just continued working). It also looks like hibernate works on this version. Also looks like wireless fails after suspend, I hadn't checked that before, sigh...