I will say I have no interest in.NET, "managed code" and all the other well-meaning but ultimately frightening things that they are doing to the tools.
Yeah, I used to feel that way. I've still never used it for a GUI - prefer C++/MFC - but it feels absolutely natural for server side in ASP.NET. And if you're just in it for C++/MFC then there are some nice new touches in VS.NET's updated MFC and ATL. I haven't looked at the 2005 MFC, though.
Trillian is free and not ad-encumbered, so Cerulean probably don't have much money to throw around. I know they sell Trillian Pro, but I doubt the split of Pro/Non-Pro users is very high. (Anyone got stats on this?)
Sure, and I'd expect non-pro vastly outnumbers pro.
I'd think nothing of paying $5 for an officially sanctioned Yahoo, MSN, etc. client though, even without the non-pro features. But then there's probably general resistance to paying anything at all.
Then tell them they're free to start charging for their IM network. I'll tell them that I'm not planning on using it.
Uh, that's exactly his point - what makes you think you should get something for nothing? If you jump ship, you just end up costing your new ship money until they decide they can't be free either.
OK, but what fraction of the total software market is that? Are they all profitable? Is there any room in the market for anyone else?
The ones you highlighted, IBM, Novell and HP, aren't necessarily good examples: they can afford to lose money on FOSS because they make plenty elsewhere.
If no-one pays for software, only for support, the cost per support incident would have to be astronomical to sustain the industry. And is there going to be enough support work to go round? Once a bug's fixed once it's fixed for all.
It all comes down to money. They want you to use their client so they can shoot their ads out to you and make more money. Use a third party client and they don't have that ability. It always comes down to money.
So why don't Cerulean offer to licence the protocol from them for money?
reallocate was just following the instructions that Microsoft and Symantec gave him/her.
Huh? daveschroeder said
Do the installation behind a personal NAT/firewall device.
i.e. behind a NAT or a firewall on a separate box, i.e. not relying on a software firewall on the box you're installing. Then the Windows box can connect to the outside world through the NAT/firewall but the outside world cannot connect back to it.
ASP documentation isn't as organized as you see it. Once you do that the function specficitacion or the teory of the objetcs, just lacks about it. Also: PHP is as fast as do a php.net/whatdoyouwant ant thats it:)
Um, OK. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think you're trying to say the ASP documentation isn't very good and that PHP is really fast?
Fine, you're welcome to that opinion. I use ASP.NET myself. The ASP.NET docs are fine and it's properly compiled rather than interpreted so I have no problems with the performance.
I'm pretty sure it's been available for a lot longer than that. The toolkit is what is new. Not the compiler being free. I KNOW the csc and vbc compilers have been free since before VS.NET 2K3
Well, yeah, but they're the C# and VB.NET compilers. They're bundled in the.NET *runtime* - to display an ASP.NET page, for example, it gets converted into an equivalent C# source and compiled.
The new thing is a free optimising C++ compiler for x86. There've been rumours before that you could find it in the platform SDK or the DDK or something but I've used both over the years and I've never seen the x86 compiler for free before.
Examples: + finding documentation on ASP vs finding documentation on PHP
In the index, you click "Web Development", "Server Technologies", "Active Server Pages". If that's too hard, you type 'ASP' in the search box in the top left hand corner. OK, the ASP language reference is under the IIS docs but you'll find a link to it from the easy-to-find ASP pages above.
+ finding documentation on VB.NET vs finding documentation on python
OK, I couldn't see this one in the index myself. But I searched for 'VB.NET' in the box on the left and the sixth or seventh link goes to the VB and VC# language docs, complete with reference, which is in the Visual Studio documentation section.
If a codec is open, then the potential for cross-platform success is much better.
Only if there's a driving force to adopt the new standard. (Witness ogg/vorbis.)
The BBC do a lot to drive new technology - they've done computer and web education drives in the past, they're spending a huge amount of money on digital terrestrial channels that don't get audiences to drive adoption of that, they force-fed new technologoy to the kids on Radio 1 with webcams, SMS votes, etc., before everyone else caught on.
You have to be someone with like BBC with money, an agenda and available media content to get something like this adopted.
Face it, Microsoft doesn't exactly have a good reputation among consumers.
Amongst geeks, maybe not.
If Joe Public wants to buy a wi-fi router to work with his Microsoft Windows and he sees Microsoft make their own router he's going to be confident that it'll all work together.
I trust hardware manufacturers who SPECIALIZE in hardware, not software.
Huh? Who's to say they can't dabble in another market?
If Microsoft want a wi-fi box with their name on it, they can headhunt good wi-fi guys from another firm and set them up with a state-of-the-art factory. Hell, they can even buy another wi-fi firm outright. Does the engineers stop becoming good at wi-fi because they're working for Microsoft? No.
When a firm that specializes in hardware builds hardware it's betting its financial future. It needs to produce stuff that's commercial and will sell enough to keep the VCs happy. When Microsoft builds hardware, it's betting its reputation. It's got deep pockets - there's more incentive to build high quality stuff with no corners cut than there is to shift boxes.
When Microsoft started selling mice they were arguably the best around. They were expensive but good and they drove the average quality in the market up. They brought innovation (wheels, etc.) with mainstream support. Same with joysticks. Good solid sticks, digital gameport interface, more buttons, force feedback. The only reason I can think of that they've got out of the PC joystick market is that there's nothing left to innovate - their products still cut it.
Not true, because if you can factorise the modulus in the public key (which is generally easy to get), you can generate the private key.
Yeah, that was misleading - I was just trying to say you need a target for your arbitrary factor effort. In my mind I'd figured you'd have to have the encrypted message to know what private key it was encrypted for - although I realise now that's not necessarily true (and neither's the reverse). But it could be for real tinfoil-hat types:-)
There's no good reason, either, why a public key can't be kept as confidential as a private key or a symmetric cipher key - it's just that once you publish it to a few people there are more points of failure. And if you don't have the public key (in GPG's implementation at least) you don't have anything to try and factorise because it's not bundled with the encrypted data.
Surely a complexity calculation would suffice? After running a few iterations of the solver
Because there's no motive to optimise the solver. Open up the project, offer a prize and you'll get many eyes looking for the absolute best solution - then you can study the complexity of that.
If you knew that factoring big numbers was important to breaking encryption, and would be for quite a long time wouldn't you simply have started a huge factoring effort decades ago? I know I would have.
Factoring what? You won't know the number you need factored until you intercept or steal the encrypted data.
You could, I suppose, start multiplying every pair of primes together and try and organise a database of the results but the storage - even if you just store some sort of clue to the primes used - would be staggering, even for just 1024-bit RSA.
From another discussion I've found my way into, it looks like the FSF are happy to consider SFU 3/Interix part of the operating system for GPL purposes (see also this) even though it's supplied separately and, at one time, had an additional cost.
I'd talk to them - msvcr71 is obviously a runtime library and I'm sure they'd take the same view on that too. Good luck!
No, you can get raytracing hardware for less than the software and a Quadro FX would cost you.
For example, there's the ART PURE P1800 card which is a purpose-built raytracing accelerator. It's a mature product with an excellent featureset, speaks renderman and has good integration into all the usual 3d packages. It's generally acknowledged as a very fast piece of kit with excellent image quality, and plenty of quality/speed trade-off options. And if you've a deeper wallet they do much bigger network-appliance versions.
According to the C++ standard, the scope of the variable that is declared inside the "for" loop is limited to the loop. In other words, this code is legal according to the C++ standard, but Visual C++ 6 couldn't compile it successfully.
Did you read the docs? You can disable this behaviour with compile flag '/Za'.
As at the very top of section 3, these are your rights in terms of *redistributing "the Redistributables"* as defined in section 2.2, i.e. Microsoft binary runtime libraries. (You may wish to bundle the version of the runtimes you developed and tested against with your app in case the end user doesn't have them.) If you aren't redistributing MS runtimes libraries then you can probably ignore section 3.
I (IANAL, etc.) read 3.1iii and 3.2 as 'permission to redistrubute our binaries does not confer permission to change the licence on our binaries' and they explicitly spell out the GPL because they're scared of it.
Your assessment of 3.1ii sounds correct to me, i.e. 'you can't use our runtimes in ReactOS or Wine - you'll have to reimplement them yourselves'.
In order to release our application under the GPL, we would have to write a "special exception" permitting linking with Microsoft runtime libraries,
Doesn't the GPL already include an exception for this?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
(towards the end of section 3)
Now granted the set of runtimes has evolved over time and so not all versions shipped with all OSes but they've always been readily availabile as OS updates from Microsoft and they are all bundled with the latest OSes. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
VC6 said the exe didn't have any debugging symbols. I've tried changing the debugging options in VC6 a few different ways (C7 compatible, no program database etc), but nothing I've tried makes the debugger happy.
Yeah, they've changed the debug data format. e.g. the old one had a 256 character limit on symbol names which you can pass easily when using STL so every time you tried to write debug symbols for STL code you'd get 'warning: name to long for debug data' or similar.
You'll see MSVC6 has a MSPDB60.dll and MSVC++7 has (and these tools will have) a MSPDB70.dll. Now I did compare the two once and I think the interfaces were similar, if not the same, so it *might* just work if you rename MSPDB70 to MSPDB60. However it's likely their internal structures have changed so I'd be surprised if it did just work.
Oh wait, Windows users have to install drivers downloaded from nVidia or ATi's site, too.
No, they don't - you get old, but usable, drivers bundled with the OS.
The compressed driver base is even copied into your install so the OS will be ready for whatever you plug in. XP's gone one further - it's added a new raft of drivers with the service pack.
But with talk about Valve hiring the creator of BT (likely for Steam integration), it seems that BT is being steered towards capitalist purposes.
I installed Valve's steam on another machine last night and I got a popup that said "Preorder new game now! Please note that unless you explicitly disable it, we'll download a locked copy of the game for you anyway."
So they want everyone to be able to pay and instantly play, and they're probably using bittorrent technology to get the locked copies to them. But that's likely the extent of what they can do with it.
In terms of in-game content distribution, though (new maps, custom decals, etc.) the bittorrent model is ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
I will say I have no interest in .NET, "managed code" and all the other well-meaning but ultimately frightening things that they are doing to the tools.
Yeah, I used to feel that way. I've still never used it for a GUI - prefer C++/MFC - but it feels absolutely natural for server side in ASP.NET. And if you're just in it for C++/MFC then there are some nice new touches in VS.NET's updated MFC and ATL. I haven't looked at the 2005 MFC, though.
Trillian is free and not ad-encumbered, so Cerulean probably don't have much money to throw around. I know they sell Trillian Pro, but I doubt the split of Pro/Non-Pro users is very high. (Anyone got stats on this?)
Sure, and I'd expect non-pro vastly outnumbers pro.
I'd think nothing of paying $5 for an officially sanctioned Yahoo, MSN, etc. client though, even without the non-pro features. But then there's probably general resistance to paying anything at all.
Then tell them they're free to start charging for their IM network. I'll tell them that I'm not planning on using it.
Uh, that's exactly his point - what makes you think you should get something for nothing? If you jump ship, you just end up costing your new ship money until they decide they can't be free either.
OK, but what fraction of the total software market is that? Are they all profitable? Is there any room in the market for anyone else?
The ones you highlighted, IBM, Novell and HP, aren't necessarily good examples: they can afford to lose money on FOSS because they make plenty elsewhere.
If no-one pays for software, only for support, the cost per support incident would have to be astronomical to sustain the industry. And is there going to be enough support work to go round? Once a bug's fixed once it's fixed for all.
It all comes down to money. They want you to use their client so they can shoot their ads out to you and make more money. Use a third party client and they don't have that ability. It always comes down to money.
So why don't Cerulean offer to licence the protocol from them for money?
reallocate was just following the instructions that Microsoft and Symantec gave him/her.
Huh? daveschroeder said
Do the installation behind a personal NAT/firewall device.
i.e. behind a NAT or a firewall on a separate box, i.e. not relying on a software firewall on the box you're installing. Then the Windows box can connect to the outside world through the NAT/firewall but the outside world cannot connect back to it.
ASP documentation isn't as organized as you see it. Once you do that the function specficitacion or the teory of the objetcs, just lacks about it. Also: PHP is as fast as do a php.net/whatdoyouwant ant thats it :)
Um, OK. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think you're trying to say the ASP documentation isn't very good and that PHP is really fast?
Fine, you're welcome to that opinion. I use ASP.NET myself. The ASP.NET docs are fine and it's properly compiled rather than interpreted so I have no problems with the performance.
I'm pretty sure it's been available for a lot longer than that. The toolkit is what is new. Not the compiler being free. I KNOW the csc and vbc compilers have been free since before VS.NET 2K3
.NET *runtime* - to display an ASP.NET page, for example, it gets converted into an equivalent C# source and compiled.
Well, yeah, but they're the C# and VB.NET compilers. They're bundled in the
The new thing is a free optimising C++ compiler for x86. There've been rumours before that you could find it in the platform SDK or the DDK or something but I've used both over the years and I've never seen the x86 compiler for free before.
Examples:
+ finding documentation on ASP vs finding documentation on PHP
In the index, you click "Web Development", "Server Technologies", "Active Server Pages". If that's too hard, you type 'ASP' in the search box in the top left hand corner. OK, the ASP language reference is under the IIS docs but you'll find a link to it from the easy-to-find ASP pages above.
+ finding documentation on VB.NET vs finding documentation on python
OK, I couldn't see this one in the index myself. But I searched for 'VB.NET' in the box on the left and the sixth or seventh link goes to the VB and VC# language docs, complete with reference, which is in the Visual Studio documentation section.
If a codec is open, then the potential for cross-platform success is much better.
Only if there's a driving force to adopt the new standard. (Witness ogg/vorbis.)
The BBC do a lot to drive new technology - they've done computer and web education drives in the past, they're spending a huge amount of money on digital terrestrial channels that don't get audiences to drive adoption of that, they force-fed new technologoy to the kids on Radio 1 with webcams, SMS votes, etc., before everyone else caught on.
You have to be someone with like BBC with money, an agenda and available media content to get something like this adopted.
Face it, Microsoft doesn't exactly have a good reputation among consumers.
Amongst geeks, maybe not.
If Joe Public wants to buy a wi-fi router to work with his Microsoft Windows and he sees Microsoft make their own router he's going to be confident that it'll all work together.
I trust hardware manufacturers who SPECIALIZE in hardware, not software.
Huh? Who's to say they can't dabble in another market?
If Microsoft want a wi-fi box with their name on it, they can headhunt good wi-fi guys from another firm and set them up with a state-of-the-art factory. Hell, they can even buy another wi-fi firm outright. Does the engineers stop becoming good at wi-fi because they're working for Microsoft? No.
When a firm that specializes in hardware builds hardware it's betting its financial future. It needs to produce stuff that's commercial and will sell enough to keep the VCs happy. When Microsoft builds hardware, it's betting its reputation. It's got deep pockets - there's more incentive to build high quality stuff with no corners cut than there is to shift boxes.
When Microsoft started selling mice they were arguably the best around. They were expensive but good and they drove the average quality in the market up. They brought innovation (wheels, etc.) with mainstream support. Same with joysticks. Good solid sticks, digital gameport interface, more buttons, force feedback. The only reason I can think of that they've got out of the PC joystick market is that there's nothing left to innovate - their products still cut it.
Not true, because if you can factorise the modulus in the public key (which is generally easy to get), you can generate the private key.
:-)
Yeah, that was misleading - I was just trying to say you need a target for your arbitrary factor effort. In my mind I'd figured you'd have to have the encrypted message to know what private key it was encrypted for - although I realise now that's not necessarily true (and neither's the reverse). But it could be for real tinfoil-hat types
There's no good reason, either, why a public key can't be kept as confidential as a private key or a symmetric cipher key - it's just that once you publish it to a few people there are more points of failure. And if you don't have the public key (in GPG's implementation at least) you don't have anything to try and factorise because it's not bundled with the encrypted data.
Surely a complexity calculation would suffice? After running a few iterations of the solver
Because there's no motive to optimise the solver. Open up the project, offer a prize and you'll get many eyes looking for the absolute best solution - then you can study the complexity of that.
If you knew that factoring big numbers was important to breaking encryption, and would be for quite a long time wouldn't you simply have started a huge factoring effort decades ago? I know I would have.
Factoring what? You won't know the number you need factored until you intercept or steal the encrypted data.
You could, I suppose, start multiplying every pair of primes together and try and organise a database of the results but the storage - even if you just store some sort of clue to the primes used - would be staggering, even for just 1024-bit RSA.
From another discussion I've found my way into, it looks like the FSF are happy to consider SFU 3/Interix part of the operating system for GPL purposes (see also this) even though it's supplied separately and, at one time, had an additional cost.
I'd talk to them - msvcr71 is obviously a runtime library and I'm sure they'd take the same view on that too. Good luck!
ART, OGL assisted, now gelato.
Do you mean this ART? Is their stuff any good? I went to a lecture given by one of their tech guys a long time ago and it sounded pretty impressive.
Professional grade equipment is all expensive.
No, you can get raytracing hardware for less than the software and a Quadro FX would cost you.
For example, there's the ART PURE P1800 card which is a purpose-built raytracing accelerator. It's a mature product with an excellent featureset, speaks renderman and has good integration into all the usual 3d packages. It's generally acknowledged as a very fast piece of kit with excellent image quality, and plenty of quality/speed trade-off options. And if you've a deeper wallet they do much bigger network-appliance versions.
According to the C++ standard, the scope of the variable that is declared inside the "for" loop is limited to the loop. In other words, this code is legal according to the C++ standard, but Visual C++ 6 couldn't compile it successfully.
Did you read the docs? You can disable this behaviour with compile flag '/Za'.
As at the very top of section 3, these are your rights in terms of *redistributing "the Redistributables"* as defined in section 2.2, i.e. Microsoft binary runtime libraries. (You may wish to bundle the version of the runtimes you developed and tested against with your app in case the end user doesn't have them.) If you aren't redistributing MS runtimes libraries then you can probably ignore section 3.
I (IANAL, etc.) read 3.1iii and 3.2 as 'permission to redistrubute our binaries does not confer permission to change the licence on our binaries' and they explicitly spell out the GPL because they're scared of it.
Your assessment of 3.1ii sounds correct to me, i.e. 'you can't use our runtimes in ReactOS or Wine - you'll have to reimplement them yourselves'.
Doesn't the GPL already include an exception for this?(towards the end of section 3)
Now granted the set of runtimes has evolved over time and so not all versions shipped with all OSes but they've always been readily availabile as OS updates from Microsoft and they are all bundled with the latest OSes. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
VC6 said the exe didn't have any debugging symbols. I've tried changing the debugging options in VC6 a few different ways (C7 compatible, no program database etc), but nothing I've tried makes the debugger happy.
Yeah, they've changed the debug data format. e.g. the old one had a 256 character limit on symbol names which you can pass easily when using STL so every time you tried to write debug symbols for STL code you'd get 'warning: name to long for debug data' or similar.
You'll see MSVC6 has a MSPDB60.dll and MSVC++7 has (and these tools will have) a MSPDB70.dll. Now I did compare the two once and I think the interfaces were similar, if not the same, so it *might* just work if you rename MSPDB70 to MSPDB60. However it's likely their internal structures have changed so I'd be surprised if it did just work.
It does say:so it might just be that - Compact POrtable Device. That's not very inspired though.
Oh wait, Windows users have to install drivers downloaded from nVidia or ATi's site, too.
No, they don't - you get old, but usable, drivers bundled with the OS.
The compressed driver base is even copied into your install so the OS will be ready for whatever you plug in. XP's gone one further - it's added a new raft of drivers with the service pack.
But with talk about Valve hiring the creator of BT (likely for Steam integration), it seems that BT is being steered towards capitalist purposes.
I installed Valve's steam on another machine last night and I got a popup that said "Preorder new game now! Please note that unless you explicitly disable it, we'll download a locked copy of the game for you anyway."
So they want everyone to be able to pay and instantly play, and they're probably using bittorrent technology to get the locked copies to them. But that's likely the extent of what they can do with it.
In terms of in-game content distribution, though (new maps, custom decals, etc.) the bittorrent model is ideal.