You don't understand -- you CAN view the files as plain text, but manipulating them programmatically as plain text is NOT a very efficient or scalable way to do it.
Read my other post. We're talking about XML files, so of course I'm talking about CRLF in reference to it being used as an EOL character in files, not in reference to internet protocols. Compared with other modern OS's, Windows is one of the few OS's (are there any others that people really use?) actually using CRLF for EOL characters.
Ah, well I didn't know CRLF as an EOL character had such a long history. I thought it was (mostly) unique to Microsoft. It certainly is a "Microsoft-ism" when you compare Windows to other modern OS's.
Perhaps you should work on some real projects instead of XML 101 at your college.
Uh, I do actually. I'm professionally employed and working with web services using Java and XML. As far as "small files" goes, if you want to hack something out you can do that, but it's not a solution that scales very well. And you can always serialize ANY XML document that you're working with, so being able to view the files in the event of an error is not an issue.
Since we're talking about XML files, naturally I'm taking about CRLF as an EOL character in files, genius. Most operating systems use LF, not CRLF. This has nothing to do with internet protocols.
Have you ever programmed any kind of project using XML? It is WAY too tedious to manipulate XML as raw text. Instead, you parse it into a tree and manipulate nodes, then serialize the XML back into text. Idiot.
What I meant was that every decent XML parser requires you to handle the XML tree in some manner other than messing with raw text, like the original poster seems to think the optimal way to do things. SAX or DOM -- either way you're going to have to deal with all sorts of objects representing things like nodes, text, etc.
just to escape-out special characters requires instantiating a new "entity" element in the middle of the text string element.
Maybe that's the "right" way to do it, but I highly doubt that you cannot set the value of a text node to a string that contains an entity (i.e., "this is an ampersand: &"). That would be the more direct approach.
And I still haven't figured out how to make the thing give me a CRLF at the end of each element. No, XML doesn't require the whitespace, but it would have sure made it easier for my clients to read the file!
First, you could have them read the file with Wordpad or just about any text editor other than notepad. And BTW, why are you complaining about MSXML not generating CRLF? You DO realize CRLF is a Microsoft-ism and not "standard", right? So you're complaining about MSXML generating text files in a manner more in line with the way every other system does it. Baffling...
But the worst part is that I *succeeded* in using MSXML. Now, if I wanted to go back to just writing a text file (which I do!), I can't -- my code is tangled up in the objects to the point that it would take a complete rewrite.
I've got news for you -- every decent XML parser library requires you to manipulate the XML tree in an object-oriented manner! It's called the Document Object Model for a reason -- you're not manipulating raw text! You can go ahead and do that if you like, and we'll see how much "easier" that is for any project requiring more than the most basic use of XML.
Mods, get a clue. The way the MSXML library handles XML is not unique in some "Microsoft always makes crap" kind of way. Every decent XML library handles XML the same way.
How? The result is going to be the same: AV companies will go out of business if the OS is more secure, regardless of the method used to achieve it. Read the other reply to my post -- he makes a good point. Microsoft integrated a TCP/IP stack, and that put a lot of companies out of business. But really, would you, in this day and age, ever think about having to buy a TCP/IP stack? No, it's something that should be integrated into the OS. Perhaps in a number of years we'll feel the same way about AV software.
I realize that he said he wanted menus. But I think it's pointless. Really, don't you just want the movie? The other thing I don't think he's considered -- he thinks 1TB is enough for 1000 DVDs? Get real. At a minimum we're talking about 4TB, probably 7TB. That's gonna cost some serious money that transcoding will save.
First, I would recommend transcoding the DVDs to XviD or DivX with a high bitrate (2Mb/s). You won't notice the quality loss and you'll save a whole lot of disk space. This route also gives you a lot more options, as you can use software like Winamp or BSPlayer to play the videos.
Second, are you any good with programming? What I've done is rig up a simple fullscreen frontend with Java. When you select a movie, the player starts fullscreen. I've got a simple IRman interface, a remote control, and Girder to translate keypresses on the remote into keystrokes that the Java app recognizes. Works great, and it's customizable to my preferences. I can understand if you don't have the time or skill to write a frontend, and I'm sure other posters will point out pre-made frontends.
The best part about Girder: you can translate keys like FF, REW, STOP, etc. into commands the player understands.
OK, I've heard a lot of rants about how evil Microsoft is for bundling a virus scanner (big surprise). They're going to put all these AV software companies out of business. OK. Well, let's imagine a very hypothetical situation: one day, Microsoft releases a service pack that renders all Windows operating systems completely immune to viruses and worms and we're to assume that new viruses and worms never appear. That's good, right? But wait -- those AV companies will go out of business! That's wrong and Microsoft is evil for patching up their operating system, right?
Since that scenario clearly will never happen, Microsoft is instead opting to create a program that will, in theory, eliminate or significantly reduce the threat of viruses and worms on their operating system. The end result of either patching up the OS or creating a good, integrated AV program is the same -- significant reduction of viruses and worms, much to the detriment of existing AV software. What's the big deal?
As much talk as I hear on Slashdot about how record companies are trying to cash in on a dead business model, I'm baffled that is hasn't occurred to anyone that AV companies are cashing in on a business model that, in theory, will completely dry up.
It's very common to work on a piece of software that might rely on some third party library that you don't have source for. In order to get your source tree to compile you're pretty much going to need a copy of that library. Seems pretty convenient to keep it around in CVS.
But besides that, you might have some binary data file that needs to be part of your distribution, i.e. PDF documentation.
The reason this study is invalid is because they deliberately removed two entire classes of breaches that are *major* problems for Microsoft Windows (viruses and worms).
Look... Viruses/worms and direct hacking are different classes of exploits. According to this study, when comparing Windows and Linux in regard to how successful a person would be when directly hacking, Linux is more insecure than Windows. That's all this study is saying. If you turn around and compare ONLY viruses/worms, the results are the other way around.
But beside that, the reason I brought up my original point is to say that the defense of Windows's number of viruses/worms boils down to "there's more people using Windows, so therefore there will be more people trying to exploit Windows, hence more viruses." The original poster said the exact same thing about Linux. I merely pointed out that he's using the same logic people use to defend Windows to defend Linux. Now do you see what I'm talking about?
The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place.
So how come every time there's an article/rant about how insecure Windows is and someone says the exact same thing about Windows (i.e., "Windows has more viruses/attacks because it is the most widely used desktop operating system"), it's considered nonsense or a copout by so many Slashdotters?
Well yeah. If you think about it, I'm sure just about every Linux zealot on the planet is frantically analyzing the source to create an exploit for each and every hole they can find in an effort to prove just how inferior Windows is to Linux. I'm sure if a bunch of Windows zealots were working around the clock to create Linux exploits you'd see Linux exploits pop up with the same amount of frequency.
Microsoft helped create the XML standard. They weren't the only ones to do it, true, but they are on the Working Group nonetheless. So it's not fair to say they're only using it.
I'm interested to hear who you think can claim XML as their innovation if someone on the WG can't do so!
There isn't a single 'innovation' from Microsoft which wasn't thought of 10 years earlier in some other camp.
Then you say...
Show me one single Microsoft innovation to have come out of their so-called R&D labs, which we couldn't have engineered/designed/implemented 10 years earlier
So basically you went from "EVERYTHING Microsoft has done was done by someone else at least ten years ago" to "anything that Microsoft has done that I can't directly show someone else having done first I can simply say 'well someone COULD have done it at least ten years ago'." Make up your mind. Or is this just your copout for when someone inevitabaly shows you something that Microsoft has done that no one was doing, or could have done at least ten years ago?
Here's one: anything Microsoft is doing that's XML-related. No XML ten years ago, so no one else could have done it!
Why is it so difficult, if not impossible, to write bug-free programs that contain more than 20 to 30 million lines of code?
Maybe because the programs contain 20 to 30 million lines of code.
Look, I understand that a lot of people are yearning for the good old days when software was less buggy. You know what? I suppose that if your entire application consists of something like 4000 assembly code instructions, you might just be able to make the program bug-free.
But it's not 1983 anymore and programs are on the order of millions of lines of code. Of course it's not feasible to go over the entire program manually and root out every single bug. The stuff I work with every day is considered extremely small and yet it depends on all sorts of external libraries, each of which may have dependencies, etc. It all adds up to amazingly large amounts of code. But, it requires large amounts of code to do extremely complicated things. Is this a surprise to her or something? I don't think there's any "paradigm shift" in the field of programming that's going to change the fact that:
* Doing complicated things requires lots of code. * The more code you write, the higher the chance of bugs.
You are missing something. There already is a FreeBSD version of the C# compiler, developed by Microsoft. I know, I know, this is Slashdot, Microsoft is evil and wants to tie everyone to Windows, but they actually ported their stuff to FreeBSD.
And Java is a better choice for embedded systems? Obviously native code is best, but you can't deny using languages like Java or C# on embedded systems -- the demand is obviously there. And.NET is bloated and produces "extremely bloated and slow programs"? By all accounts I've read, between.NET and Java,.NET is the one with the performance advantage (and a significant one at that).
XSL is not a scripting language. It is a document that defines a sequence of steps for transforming one XML document into another XML document or another format entirely. What Microsoft patented is a particular XML-based format that simply joins together segments of code from various scripting languages and information for executing these scripts.
Perhaps you should work some more with XSL before you compare the content of Microsoft's patent with XSL.
Internet Explorer 6 for Windows: 25MB 5KB/s modem link: 1 hour 25 minutes Do your website visitors spend much more time than that each day on their computers?... And of course, downloading Mozilla for Linux takes mere seconds on a modem I suppose?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand -- you CAN view the files as plain text, but manipulating them programmatically as plain text is NOT a very efficient or scalable way to do it.
Read my other post. We're talking about XML files, so of course I'm talking about CRLF in reference to it being used as an EOL character in files, not in reference to internet protocols. Compared with other modern OS's, Windows is one of the few OS's (are there any others that people really use?) actually using CRLF for EOL characters.
Ah, well I didn't know CRLF as an EOL character had such a long history. I thought it was (mostly) unique to Microsoft. It certainly is a "Microsoft-ism" when you compare Windows to other modern OS's.
Perhaps you should work on
some real projects instead of XML 101 at your college.
Uh, I do actually. I'm professionally employed and working with web services using Java and XML. As far as "small files" goes, if you want to hack something out you can do that, but it's not a solution that scales very well. And you can always serialize ANY XML document that you're working with, so being able to view the files in the event of an error is not an issue.
Since we're talking about XML files, naturally I'm taking about CRLF as an EOL character in files, genius. Most operating systems use LF, not CRLF. This has nothing to do with internet protocols.
Have you ever programmed any kind of project using XML? It is WAY too tedious to manipulate XML as raw text. Instead, you parse it into a tree and manipulate nodes, then serialize the XML back into text. Idiot.
What I meant was that every decent XML parser requires you to handle the XML tree in some manner other than messing with raw text, like the original poster seems to think the optimal way to do things. SAX or DOM -- either way you're going to have to deal with all sorts of objects representing things like nodes, text, etc.
just to escape-out special characters requires instantiating a new "entity" element in the middle of the text string element.
Maybe that's the "right" way to do it, but I highly doubt that you cannot set the value of a text node to a string that contains an entity (i.e., "this is an ampersand: &"). That would be the more direct approach.
And I still haven't figured out how to make the thing give me a CRLF at the end of each element. No, XML doesn't require the whitespace, but it would have sure made it easier for my clients to read the file!
First, you could have them read the file with Wordpad or just about any text editor other than notepad. And BTW, why are you complaining about MSXML not generating CRLF? You DO realize CRLF is a Microsoft-ism and not "standard", right? So you're complaining about MSXML generating text files in a manner more in line with the way every other system does it. Baffling...
But the worst part is that I *succeeded* in using MSXML. Now, if I wanted to go back to just writing a text file (which I do!), I can't -- my code is tangled up in the objects to the point that it would take a complete rewrite.
I've got news for you -- every decent XML parser library requires you to manipulate the XML tree in an object-oriented manner! It's called the Document Object Model for a reason -- you're not manipulating raw text! You can go ahead and do that if you like, and we'll see how much "easier" that is for any project requiring more than the most basic use of XML.
Mods, get a clue. The way the MSXML library handles XML is not unique in some "Microsoft always makes crap" kind of way. Every decent XML library handles XML the same way.
Oh, excuse me. A couple hundred DVDs. They still won't fit in 1TB.
How? The result is going to be the same: AV companies will go out of business if the OS is more secure, regardless of the method used to achieve it. Read the other reply to my post -- he makes a good point. Microsoft integrated a TCP/IP stack, and that put a lot of companies out of business. But really, would you, in this day and age, ever think about having to buy a TCP/IP stack? No, it's something that should be integrated into the OS. Perhaps in a number of years we'll feel the same way about AV software.
I realize that he said he wanted menus. But I think it's pointless. Really, don't you just want the movie? The other thing I don't think he's considered -- he thinks 1TB is enough for 1000 DVDs? Get real. At a minimum we're talking about 4TB, probably 7TB. That's gonna cost some serious money that transcoding will save.
First, I would recommend transcoding the DVDs to XviD or DivX with a high bitrate (2Mb/s). You won't notice the quality loss and you'll save a whole lot of disk space. This route also gives you a lot more options, as you can use software like Winamp or BSPlayer to play the videos.
Second, are you any good with programming? What I've done is rig up a simple fullscreen frontend with Java. When you select a movie, the player starts fullscreen. I've got a simple IRman interface, a remote control, and Girder to translate keypresses on the remote into keystrokes that the Java app recognizes. Works great, and it's customizable to my preferences. I can understand if you don't have the time or skill to write a frontend, and I'm sure other posters will point out pre-made frontends.
The best part about Girder: you can translate keys like FF, REW, STOP, etc. into commands the player understands.
OK, I've heard a lot of rants about how evil Microsoft is for bundling a virus scanner (big surprise). They're going to put all these AV software companies out of business. OK. Well, let's imagine a very hypothetical situation: one day, Microsoft releases a service pack that renders all Windows operating systems completely immune to viruses and worms and we're to assume that new viruses and worms never appear. That's good, right? But wait -- those AV companies will go out of business! That's wrong and Microsoft is evil for patching up their operating system, right?
Since that scenario clearly will never happen, Microsoft is instead opting to create a program that will, in theory, eliminate or significantly reduce the threat of viruses and worms on their operating system. The end result of either patching up the OS or creating a good, integrated AV program is the same -- significant reduction of viruses and worms, much to the detriment of existing AV software. What's the big deal?
As much talk as I hear on Slashdot about how record companies are trying to cash in on a dead business model, I'm baffled that is hasn't occurred to anyone that AV companies are cashing in on a business model that, in theory, will completely dry up.
Are you being serious?
It's very common to work on a piece of software that might rely on some third party library that you don't have source for. In order to get your source tree to compile you're pretty much going to need a copy of that library. Seems pretty convenient to keep it around in CVS.
But besides that, you might have some binary data file that needs to be part of your distribution, i.e. PDF documentation.
The reason this study is invalid is because they deliberately removed two entire classes of breaches that are *major* problems for Microsoft Windows (viruses and worms).
Look... Viruses/worms and direct hacking are different classes of exploits. According to this study, when comparing Windows and Linux in regard to how successful a person would be when directly hacking, Linux is more insecure than Windows. That's all this study is saying. If you turn around and compare ONLY viruses/worms, the results are the other way around.
But beside that, the reason I brought up my original point is to say that the defense of Windows's number of viruses/worms boils down to "there's more people using Windows, so therefore there will be more people trying to exploit Windows, hence more viruses." The original poster said the exact same thing about Linux. I merely pointed out that he's using the same logic people use to defend Windows to defend Linux. Now do you see what I'm talking about?
The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place.
So how come every time there's an article/rant about how insecure Windows is and someone says the exact same thing about Windows (i.e., "Windows has more viruses/attacks because it is the most widely used desktop operating system"), it's considered nonsense or a copout by so many Slashdotters?
An exploit this quick?
Well yeah. If you think about it, I'm sure just about every Linux zealot on the planet is frantically analyzing the source to create an exploit for each and every hole they can find in an effort to prove just how inferior Windows is to Linux. I'm sure if a bunch of Windows zealots were working around the clock to create Linux exploits you'd see Linux exploits pop up with the same amount of frequency.
Microsoft helped create the XML standard. They weren't the only ones to do it, true, but they are on the Working Group nonetheless. So it's not fair to say they're only using it.
I'm interested to hear who you think can claim XML as their innovation if someone on the WG can't do so!
First you say...
There isn't a single 'innovation' from Microsoft which wasn't thought of 10 years earlier in some other camp.
Then you say...
Show me one single Microsoft innovation to have come out of their so-called R&D labs, which we couldn't have engineered/designed/implemented 10 years earlier
So basically you went from "EVERYTHING Microsoft has done was done by someone else at least ten years ago" to "anything that Microsoft has done that I can't directly show someone else having done first I can simply say 'well someone COULD have done it at least ten years ago'." Make up your mind. Or is this just your copout for when someone inevitabaly shows you something that Microsoft has done that no one was doing, or could have done at least ten years ago?
Here's one: anything Microsoft is doing that's XML-related. No XML ten years ago, so no one else could have done it!
Why is it so difficult, if not impossible, to write bug-free programs that contain more than 20 to 30 million lines of code?
Maybe because the programs contain 20 to 30 million lines of code.
Look, I understand that a lot of people are yearning for the good old days when software was less buggy. You know what? I suppose that if your entire application consists of something like 4000 assembly code instructions, you might just be able to make the program bug-free.
But it's not 1983 anymore and programs are on the order of millions of lines of code. Of course it's not feasible to go over the entire program manually and root out every single bug. The stuff I work with every day is considered extremely small and yet it depends on all sorts of external libraries, each of which may have dependencies, etc. It all adds up to amazingly large amounts of code. But, it requires large amounts of code to do extremely complicated things. Is this a surprise to her or something? I don't think there's any "paradigm shift" in the field of programming that's going to change the fact that:
* Doing complicated things requires lots of code.
* The more code you write, the higher the chance of bugs.
I reiterate: duh...
You are missing something. There already is a FreeBSD version of the C# compiler, developed by Microsoft. I know, I know, this is Slashdot, Microsoft is evil and wants to tie everyone to Windows, but they actually ported their stuff to FreeBSD.
And Java is a better choice for embedded systems? Obviously native code is best, but you can't deny using languages like Java or C# on embedded systems -- the demand is obviously there. And .NET is bloated and produces "extremely bloated and slow programs"? By all accounts I've read, between .NET and Java, .NET is the one with the performance advantage (and a significant one at that).
XSL is not a scripting language. It is a document that defines a sequence of steps for transforming one XML document into another XML document or another format entirely. What Microsoft patented is a particular XML-based format that simply joins together segments of code from various scripting languages and information for executing these scripts.
Perhaps you should work some more with XSL before you compare the content of Microsoft's patent with XSL.
Well you said it, an IE upgrade.
And I also said, "ASIDE from an IE upgrade." You make it sound as if rebooting when installing a web browser in Windows is the norm.
Internet Explorer 6 for Windows: 25MB ... And of course, downloading Mozilla for Linux takes mere seconds on a modem I suppose?
5KB/s modem link: 1 hour 25 minutes
Do your website visitors spend much more time than that each day on their computers?