Excuse me? You call Windows Explorer not an application but you all the replacement Windows/IE explorer hybrid an application? How so mr DOJ/Sun/Netscape/Oracle/Sun person?
Hello?
Multitasking and usable networking stack
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 1
Both exist in PalmOS in some hacky and unusable for "normal" developer way -- this is why PalmOS networking can't work with my Metricom/Ricochet modem in "star mode" and has to use PPP emulation.
Sounds cool [NOT]. Try to type kill -9 (or perl )on your silkscreen. They must be masochistic.
I often use my PalmIII with Ricochet as a terminal to read mail at home or build software at work. Typing "kill -9" never was a problem with graffitti.
Since all you have in the browser is the presentation layer, all of the file formatting issues are back on the Star Portal server, so if Sun decides to support other file formats, you just upgrade the server.
And how high/low-level the interactions between server and client are? documents in intermediate format? widgets and updates? every keypress/mouse/editing command? Is protocol documented? Open? Published?
Cisco can implement wiretapping in their IP telephony devices, however this can't affect any of non-telephony traffic or even telephony traffic that doesn't use their devices. In other words, people who will want to have secure channel still will have secure channel as long as they don't use normal voice over the phone (that never was secure in the first place). What IETF was asked for was modification of protocols, so wiretapping could be achieved on any protocol's implementation -- what will definitely defeat security.
You know how you can get your e-mail over the web from yahoo? Replace "e-mail" with "office suite" and "yahoo" with "starportal" and see if you can visualize that.
I can visualize that I can get ravioli with pesto through yahoo-mail-like interface -- this doesn't explain anything about implementation. What I want to know is how it is supposed to be implemented, and what technologies with known deficiencies (poor portability, low performance, high bandwidth use, security, etc.) will be involved.
1. SunRay-like thing with application running on the server and low-level screen-copying to terminals?
2. X or X-like thing with application running on the server and remote drawing on window system level with multiple applications independently talking to one screen?
3. The same with high-level widgets?
4. The same in Java?
5. Application, running on client with very high-level functionality (wordprocessor screen) on the client with server-based backend assisting?
6. The same with application in Java?
7. Application, running entirely on the client with server doing centralized configuration, administration and licensing only?
8. The same in Java?
9. Application running entirely on the client with server doing nothing but actual file storage?
10. The same in Java?
Can anyone explain, what exactly is it supposed to be in both Sun and Microsoft cases? Or is it all vaporware of the purest kind -- when no one has slightest idea, what is it supposed to be?
Does anyone else find it completely assinine of the Dow Jones to add in Microsoft when it's a distinct possibility that Microsoft may not exist 5 years from now because it might get broken into tiny pieces?
It's very simple -- they didn't anticipate it at all. Attempts to give that explanation to relatively small change to the stock price are most likely just attempts of damage control.
I don't think you people realize just how much money Microsoft has.
Microsoft has its stock, not actual money, or anything that can be easily sold for money. And stock, while useful for purchasing other companies and attracting new employees, can be easily thrown down and start falling after any serious threat. This time buy-backs and market inertia almost compensated the hit the stock taken after Friday, but this resource is limited, and will be exhausted very soon after case will visibly progress in the direction, unfavorable to Microsoft.
The effect on others' software will be marginal at best, however there will be completely different, and much more important result -- WINE will be able to make an exact copy of that API and provide the environment that can run all software, including Microsoft applications, on other systems -- basically the same thing, Interix tried to pull in the opposite direction. This means, application developers will not be confined to Windows while users will be able to run their old software at the same system, new one will be created for. In few years Windows (and whatever baby bill will inherit it, unless they will start doing something decent) will be dead as a doornail for no other reason than its own technological inferiority.
Force them to release detailed, accurate, timely, advance specs to Office file formats
I have strong suspicion that no such thing ever existed -- while syntax is standardized, the semantics of formats are most likely defined by how particular code renders them. The same will apply to their promised XML-ified version, except that XML standard explicitly states that no means for semantics definition are provided, and such things are left to implementations.
Even on the latest 4.61, if you do something as elementry as insert a link, it'll bus error, for god's sake! This is just entirely too lame. And it doesn't even have Mozilla's excuses.
Ever tried to install a port that matches your libc? Not to mention that 4.61 was "the latest" 4 months ago.
Re:Hi, I?m stupid. I?ll write a parady with lotsa
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
!@%%man indeed: ---8<--- User Info for sirhan (105815)
http://www.theonion.com/ sirhanFEARS_SPAM@narcoleptic.net Karma -4 (mostly the sum of moderation done to users comments) User Bio Ouch... IT HURTS!!! Make the pain go away.
sirhan has posted 2 comments (this only counts the last few weeks)
1 First Post posted on 07:08 PM November 4th, 1999 PDT (Score:-1) attached to Loki Hack '99 Patches available 2 First Post posted on 03:09 PM October 28th, 1999 PDT (Score:-1) attached to Tux Has a Nameless Green Martian Relative --->8--
Re:Hi, I?m stupid. I?ll write a parady with lotsa
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
It's a smartass editing "feature" that replaces certain symbols in sequences that are recognized as "quotation" with other symbols that are supposed to make quotations look "prettier". In particular single quote (ASCII 0x2c) is replaced by 0x92, quote-like symbol that exists in Microsoft fonts but isn't defined in any standards. Browser on Unix sees charset iso8859-1 in the header (or has it by default) and uses standard iso8859-1 font (without Microsoft's "additions"), replacing all undefined symbols by question marks.
This is potentially more harmful than it looks -- comparison of text before and after editing with "smart quotes" turned on will see difference even if the text remained the same, so, say, databse handling program may be seriously confused about that.
Re:Hi, I?m stupid. I?ll write a parady with lotsa
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
Why don?t people look at their shit before looking very foolish by leaving MS quotation marks(?)?
Because their browser uses only Microsoft fonts with those quotation marks.
since he hadn't gotten the Linux support for it figgered out yet.
The phone number is 777, no logins or password prompts (serial link is considered to be physically secure, "modems" authenticate using pre-set IDs in ROM). Everything else is just like for normal modem with PPP and hardware flow control.
It's exactly that -- just Xing player was even easier to reverse-engineer than the rest because it usually takes time to find the decryption procedure of the key in deliberately obfuscated code. Still it was inevitable that reverse-engineering succeeded -- obfuscation increases time necessary for reverse-engineering only few times, and reasonably persistent person still won't see it as a serious problem.
The whole idea that someone can "encrypt" something that is supposed to be seen by user/consumer and have "secret" programs/keys/whatever running on equipment controlled by user that can "decrypt" it and show the result, is entirely based on the assumption that user is incapable of reverse-engineering running program, or at least effort necessary outweights the benefit. While one can argue that it can work for some games (and yet I don't think, it stopped anyone), it definitely not so for movies on DVD, especially considering regions and other "features" that users perceive as sabotage. Even the most perfectly "protected" program can be reverse-engineered if user can run it in some controlled environment, so in the case ov DVD encryption this model simply couldn't work -- once something is out, it's out, and to prevent someone from reproducing a process one shouldn't perform that process when someone is watching in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like in spam: "This is not a spam" (spam follows).
Excuse me? You call Windows Explorer not an application but you all the replacement Windows/IE explorer hybrid an application? How so mr DOJ/Sun/Netscape/Oracle/Sun person?
Hello?
Both exist in PalmOS in some hacky and unusable for "normal" developer way -- this is why PalmOS networking can't work with my Metricom/Ricochet modem in "star mode" and has to use PPP emulation.
Sounds cool [NOT]. Try to type kill -9 (or perl )on your silkscreen. They must be masochistic.
I often use my PalmIII with Ricochet as a terminal to read mail at home or build software at work. Typing "kill -9" never was a problem with graffitti.
Since all you have in the browser is the presentation layer, all of the file formatting issues are back on the Star Portal server, so if Sun decides to support other file formats, you just upgrade the server.
And how high/low-level the interactions between server and client are? documents in intermediate format? widgets and updates? every keypress/mouse/editing command? Is protocol documented? Open? Published?
Cisco can implement wiretapping in their IP telephony devices, however this can't affect any of non-telephony traffic or even telephony traffic that doesn't use their devices. In other words, people who will want to have secure channel still will have secure channel as long as they don't use normal voice over the phone (that never was secure in the first place). What IETF was asked for was modification of protocols, so wiretapping could be achieved on any protocol's implementation -- what will definitely defeat security.
You know how you can get your e-mail over the web from yahoo? Replace "e-mail" with "office suite" and "yahoo" with "starportal" and see if you can visualize that.
I can visualize that I can get ravioli with pesto through yahoo-mail-like interface -- this doesn't explain anything about implementation. What I want to know is how it is supposed to be implemented, and what technologies with known deficiencies (poor portability, low performance, high bandwidth use, security, etc.) will be involved.
I mean, what exactly "over the web" suite is?
1. SunRay-like thing with application running on the server and low-level screen-copying to terminals?
2. X or X-like thing with application running on the server and remote drawing on window system level with multiple applications independently talking to one screen?
3. The same with high-level widgets?
4. The same in Java?
5. Application, running on client with very high-level functionality (wordprocessor screen) on the client with server-based backend assisting?
6. The same with application in Java?
7. Application, running entirely on the client with server doing centralized configuration, administration and licensing only?
8. The same in Java?
9. Application running entirely on the client with server doing nothing but actual file storage?
10. The same in Java?
Can anyone explain, what exactly is it supposed to be in both Sun and Microsoft cases? Or is it all vaporware of the purest kind -- when no one has slightest idea, what is it supposed to be?
(in Homer Simpson's voice)
Does anyone else find it completely assinine of the Dow Jones to add in Microsoft when it's a distinct possibility that Microsoft may not exist 5 years from now because it might get broken into tiny pieces?
It's very simple -- they didn't anticipate it at all. Attempts to give that explanation to relatively small change to the stock price are most likely just attempts of damage control.
Next time try to scare someone dumber than you are, but thanks for playing anyway.
I don't think you people realize just how much money Microsoft has.
Microsoft has its stock, not actual money, or anything that can be easily sold for money. And stock, while useful for purchasing other companies and attracting new employees, can be easily thrown down and start falling after any serious threat. This time buy-backs and market inertia almost compensated the hit the stock taken after Friday, but this resource is limited, and will be exhausted very soon after case will visibly progress in the direction, unfavorable to Microsoft.
The effect on others' software will be marginal at best, however there will be completely different, and much more important result -- WINE will be able to make an exact copy of that API and provide the environment that can run all software, including Microsoft applications, on other systems -- basically the same thing, Interix tried to pull in the opposite direction. This means, application developers will not be confined to Windows while users will be able to run their old software at the same system, new one will be created for. In few years Windows (and whatever baby bill will inherit it, unless they will start doing something decent) will be dead as a doornail for no other reason than its own technological inferiority.
Hotmail uses Unix, why can't MSNBC?!
No monopolistic pressure here -- IIS is just too tasty, and ASP are too crunchy for NBC people.
The guy made an _ISP_, and not particulary noticeable one except that it's completely Microsoft-based. Who cares?
Force them to release detailed, accurate, timely, advance specs to Office file formats
I have strong suspicion that no such thing ever existed -- while syntax is standardized, the semantics of formats are most likely defined by how particular code renders them. The same will apply to their promised XML-ified version, except that XML standard explicitly states that no means for semantics definition are provided, and such things are left to implementations.
Even on the latest 4.61, if you do something as elementry as insert a link, it'll bus error, for god's sake! This is just entirely too lame. And it doesn't even have Mozilla's excuses.
Ever tried to install a port that matches your libc? Not to mention that 4.61 was "the latest" 4 months ago.
Sorry, it's 0x27, not 0x2c.
!@%%man indeed:
---8<---
User Info for sirhan (105815)
http://www.theonion.com/
sirhanFEARS_SPAM@narcoleptic.net
Karma -4 (mostly the sum of moderation done to users comments)
User Bio
Ouch... IT HURTS!!! Make the pain go away.
sirhan has posted 2 comments (this only counts the last few weeks)
1 First Post posted on 07:08 PM November 4th, 1999 PDT (Score:-1)
attached to Loki Hack '99 Patches available
2 First Post posted on 03:09 PM October 28th, 1999 PDT (Score:-1)
attached to Tux Has a Nameless Green Martian Relative
--->8--
It's a smartass editing "feature" that replaces certain symbols in sequences that are recognized as "quotation" with other symbols that are supposed to make quotations look "prettier". In particular single quote (ASCII 0x2c) is replaced by 0x92, quote-like symbol that exists in Microsoft fonts but isn't defined in any standards. Browser on Unix sees charset iso8859-1 in the header (or has it by default) and uses standard iso8859-1 font (without Microsoft's "additions"), replacing all undefined symbols by question marks.
This is potentially more harmful than it looks -- comparison of text before and after editing with "smart quotes" turned on will see difference even if the text remained the same, so, say, databse handling program may be seriously confused about that.
Why don?t people look at their shit before looking very foolish by leaving MS quotation marks(?)?
Because their browser uses only Microsoft fonts with those quotation marks.
since he hadn't gotten the Linux support for it figgered out yet.
The phone number is 777, no logins or password prompts (serial link is considered to be physically secure, "modems" authenticate using pre-set IDs in ROM). Everything else is just like for normal modem with PPP and hardware flow control.
It's exactly that -- just Xing player was even easier to reverse-engineer than the rest because it usually takes time to find the decryption procedure of the key in deliberately obfuscated code. Still it was inevitable that reverse-engineering succeeded -- obfuscation increases time necessary for reverse-engineering only few times, and reasonably persistent person still won't see it as a serious problem.
Are you sure that they are slugs? There are a lot of other slimy things in that area...
The whole idea that someone can "encrypt" something that is supposed to be seen by user/consumer and have "secret" programs/keys/whatever running on equipment controlled by user that can "decrypt" it and show the result, is entirely based on the assumption that user is incapable of reverse-engineering running program, or at least effort necessary outweights the benefit. While one can argue that it can work for some games (and yet I don't think, it stopped anyone), it definitely not so for movies on DVD, especially considering regions and other "features" that users perceive as sabotage. Even the most perfectly "protected" program can be reverse-engineered if user can run it in some controlled environment, so in the case ov DVD encryption this model simply couldn't work -- once something is out, it's out, and to prevent someone from reproducing a process one shouldn't perform that process when someone is watching in the first place.