Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names
cd... and so on is not part of DOS spec... never was. It's just an extension to the Win 95 dos prompt. It never works on DOS 6.22 and below. Try it in the WinNT command prompt and you'll see that it doesn't work there either.
Long File Names were not made available in real mode for a reason --- in real mode you had the ability to run programs that had low-level access to the disk and file allocation tables. In other words, you run a bum program, and it will totally fuck up all the long filename directory entries (VFAT had the normal FAT entries, and then extra ones for long filenames). Actually Windows 95 used to ship with this utility called LFNBK that its whole purpose was to back up and remove all the vfat long filename entries on the disk, and store them to a database. That would allow you to safely run low-level disk programs that didn't support long filenames. You could use LFNBK to restore them later.
I do distinctly having to deal with that bastard lock command. It would halt any process (and even the system if I recall correctly) when you tried to low-level access the disk in protected mode, to avoid corruption. Anyone with a Windows 95 box still around try typing lock/? at the prompt to get some info. LOCK was one of those secret, undocumented commands --- there wasn't even anything about it in the resource kit, IIRC.
The correct Linux example would not be glibc but, say, replacing Mozilla with Netscape or Konqueror. With modern desktops like GNOME (and I assume KDE too, although I don't use it much) things are set up so you can easily do this in such a way that any compliant application that needs an HTML URL handler will transparently use the one you specify.
It's not so much MIME types, i.e. not just an HTML handler. We're talking complete dependence on that control for integration into the application. Like for example, you can make IE part of the application form to design an interactive program, not just have an HTTP / HTML file handler. The caveat here is that these controls/components are hard-coded into the source. Should the IE dependencies disappear, and say, replaced with something else like the Gecko engine, the apps would have to be recompiled. I saw a link on here earlier that is a Gecko engine control written to emulate the IE engine, but it requires binarily patching all the applications in question (stability issues?) as well as possibly having red tape all over it.
Once again we reach the point of "what exactly is IE free?" Which is why this case is destined never to end. Like I said before, you can delete iexplore.exe just fine, and technically "there is no IE on your system," but explorer is using IE core dlls, so explorer would break functionally if you delete those files.
Like I said earlier, if you're not happy with your shell, delete the DLLs and use WinStep or Evwm (strangely resembles twm, or any other of a slew of replacement shells for windows. Search the net, Use Google!
My bad. I thought the osx finder was a browser-type finder, but I guess I was wrong. Or did that idea end up in the dumpster with the failed Copeland project?
It's a real biography of a real (if unusual) person.
Hah! And all this time I thought that RMS didn't really exist! His image was created by the GNU project not unlike the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz! And to think I was fooled this whole time... hhahaha!
Finally, there was the curious nature of Linux itself. Unrestricted by design bugs (like GNU) and legal disputes (like BSD), Linux' high-speed evolution had been so unplanned, its success so accidental, that programmers closest to the software code itself didn't know what to make of it. More compilation album than operating system, it was comprised of a hacker medley of greatest hits: everything from GCC, GDB, and glibc (the GNU Project's newly developed C Library) to X (a Unix-based graphic user interface developed by MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science) to BSD-developed tools such as BIND (the Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon, which lets users substitute easy-to-remember Internet domain names for numeric IP addresses) and TCP/IP. The arch's capstone, of course, was the Linux kernel-itself a bored-out, super-charged version of Minix. Rather than building their operating system from scratch, Torvalds and his rapidly expanding Linux development team had followed the old Picasso adage, "good artists borrow; great artists steal." Or as Torvalds himself would later translate it when describing the secret of his success: "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to take credit for things other people actually do."
Using GPL code is stealing. Right on, Dick. Also, I guess that should be justification of calling it BSD/Linux, huh?
By 1993, the GNU Project's inability to deliver a working kernel was leading to problems both within the GNU Project and within the free software movement at large. A March, 1993, a Wired magazine article by Simson Garfinkel described the GNU Project as "bogged down" despite the success of the project's many tools.
<nelson>HA-HA!</nelson> Just goes to prove that one clean-cut nerdy Finnish college student can out-code the entire, unshowered GNU/Crew.
My suggestion: Don't spend a single penny on this GNU/Book. Find someone with a copy, and photocopy it! Even better yet, download a scanned copy on KaZaA. After all, who is Dick Stallman kidding, anyway? Information should be free as in speech, right?
Yes, unfortunately you do need a licensed copy of 95 to legally make later versions work they way I and many others want it to work - but for MS that is not a problem, being that they own the copyright they could make it available in any way they want. They could come out with XP light in a week if they wanted it, without the integration. That's the whole point, though, they want to shove this 'integration' down the throats of everyone that uses their OS, in order to control the internet. This is why they were convicted in the first place, and any 'remedy' that leaves them free to continue doing what they were convicted for is nothing more than a farce.
Why should MS give a fuck what anyone thinks? Not happy with their version of explorer.exe? It's called GNU/Litestep [note: the preceding link was generated by RMS-Link-Approver]
They can write explorer.exe however the fudge they want to; if someone doesn't like the little address bar at the top of the screen, they can delete explorer. Windows doesn't need explorer (and in that case it doesn't even need IE core components either) to FUNCTION; however, explorer and other apps do.
Imagine if Linux didn't come with any dependency libraries.
Yeah, while we're at it, let's outlaw web browsers as file managers all together. We should pull them from MacOSX, kill off Konqueror, eradicate anything that even looks like a web browser as a file manager.
Some things will break imediately, but within a short period of time MS will develop a system that works - even without the additional components.
Solution:
1. Copy shdocvw.h and shdocvw.c into explorer.h and explorer.c
2. Copy mshtml.h and mshtml.c into explorer.h and explorer.c
3. Click compile!
Hey! -- it's no longer "integrated," now it's "just a shell." How can a shell.exe be illegal?
Of course it CAN be done. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that by removing IE's core components, you also tend to break a lot of applications. No one seems to freakin' mention that for 98lite to COMPLETELY remove IE from Windows 98, you need to provide the Windows 95 explorer.exe, comctrl32.dll, and shell32.dll files. Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.
So yeah, from a _Windows 98_ machine, it's impossible to remove all of IE's "core components" (well whatever you consider them) and still have a functioning Win98 machine, without additional modifications. You will undoubtedly break some apps, or have future apps be broken that have shdocvw.dll or mshtml.dll (a LOT) as dependencies.
Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux and tell me how that goes. Remember Linux is "modular"!
Yeah, of course. They'll take for granted that the states were going to prove that "Windows XP Embedded: The modular version of Windows" is modular.
Also on the list of things the states were going to prove is that the milk in my Cheerios is milk and not Elmer's glue, and that my Windows XP Workstation is really running XP, not PalmOS.
There is also the stability quandry of a DLL that is sharing space with your IIS process, any fault here could cause the web server to die.
It doesn't necessarily have to run in-process.
Even a bad mod_perl implementation can bring down Apache in a similar manner; a mod_perl based perl script gone awry could bring Apache down in a hoot.
I don't doubt it. I don't know why everyone on/. is getting their panties in a bunch, either; it's not like they are trying to hide it or anything (from the XP release notes):
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Because Microsoft has included the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software:
Copyright 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
So... what was wrong with the IIS implementation in the first place? eBay is fast and works perfectly. And I don't want to hear that "IIS is insecure" bullshit; IIS is insecure in its default configuration, but not after you lock it down properly. I'm pretty sure that eBay has the resources to hire some good IIS admins. As for the backend, eBay wasn't even scripted... their main application was an in-process C++ MFC app. That equals even more speed. Combine that with IIS and you have a compact, scalable, fast web platform. And I bet they base their back database on Oracle, so that's taken care of in the MFC connector as well. Has the current implementation of eBay ever crashed? No.
WebSphere = shit. I remember the old versions of it; they probably need a gig of RAM just to run at a decent speed!! Shit, I bet server boxes that run WebSphere come with giant primer handles to jumpstart the mofo, it's so bloated. And they're gonna rewrite the whole thing in java servlets now, for "performance"?? Puh-leeze.
Are you crazy? Since when was MySQL enterprise software? You might as well have suggested that they use MS Access. Personally I wouldn't even use MySQL to hold a database of 25 e-mail addresses; it just might buckle under the load! And you're thinking e-bay? That's a good one. PHP too, wow. Why not just suggest that people type in their own SQL queries while they're at it?
I know you can't run KDE without the tarballs but I know I can set the mimetypes for html so that an alternative browser appears and if I want can distribute a linux install doing just this (ie Mozilla appearing instead of Konqueror) without comeback.
Yeah, but can you totally remove Konqueror, install a new browser, and still have a file manager? No; even if you could, what would you have? It wouldn't be KDE anymore, it would be some mangled hunk-of-junk. Then you would take all your support woes to the KDE crew due to some unsupported modification that YOU did. Now just relate this back to the Windows world with IE as the shell. Case in point; without IE you're potentially screwed if you want to use Explorer.
Personally, I don't know what the big freakin deal is with people having IE installed by default. It's like saying that people would have a total cow over Konqueror being KDE's file manager as well as a web browser. If you want to use Moz be my freakin guest and install it, but the other browser is still your file manager.
You honestly don't see how this example is an argument against you? Since until recently it was impossible to uninstall IIS, it *is* a windows security hole. As in if you run windows (nt/2k anyway) you have this security problem.
Please, for the benefit of everyone else reading, please get a f**king clue before posting again. That is undoubtedly the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. IIS was always an optional/removable component. Always. It was never "part" of Windows; it is an installable (and likewise uninstallable) component. Although it comes installed by default on Windows 2000 Server, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from removing it!!
Slashdot Mirror
They've all been by luck thus far!
Even under Win95, you do not get the full DOS until Windows GUI is loaded: eg "cd ..." does not work in Dos95, nor do long file names
... and so on is not part of DOS spec... never was. It's just an extension to the Win 95 dos prompt. It never works on DOS 6.22 and below. Try it in the WinNT command prompt and you'll see that it doesn't work there either.
/? at the prompt to get some info. LOCK was one of those secret, undocumented commands --- there wasn't even anything about it in the resource kit, IIRC.
cd
Long File Names were not made available in real mode for a reason --- in real mode you had the ability to run programs that had low-level access to the disk and file allocation tables. In other words, you run a bum program, and it will totally fuck up all the long filename directory entries (VFAT had the normal FAT entries, and then extra ones for long filenames). Actually Windows 95 used to ship with this utility called LFNBK that its whole purpose was to back up and remove all the vfat long filename entries on the disk, and store them to a database. That would allow you to safely run low-level disk programs that didn't support long filenames. You could use LFNBK to restore them later.
I do distinctly having to deal with that bastard lock command. It would halt any process (and even the system if I recall correctly) when you tried to low-level access the disk in protected mode, to avoid corruption. Anyone with a Windows 95 box still around try typing lock
The correct Linux example would not be glibc but, say, replacing Mozilla with Netscape or Konqueror. With modern desktops like GNOME (and I assume KDE too, although I don't use it much) things are set up so you can easily do this in such a way that any compliant application that needs an HTML URL handler will transparently use the one you specify.
It's not so much MIME types, i.e. not just an HTML handler. We're talking complete dependence on that control for integration into the application. Like for example, you can make IE part of the application form to design an interactive program, not just have an HTTP / HTML file handler. The caveat here is that these controls/components are hard-coded into the source. Should the IE dependencies disappear, and say, replaced with something else like the Gecko engine, the apps would have to be recompiled. I saw a link on here earlier that is a Gecko engine control written to emulate the IE engine, but it requires binarily patching all the applications in question (stability issues?) as well as possibly having red tape all over it.
Yes, and this and this screenshot both exemplify the rocket-powered progress that plex86 has undergone, placing it well ahead of Bochs.
Once again we reach the point of "what exactly is IE free?" Which is why this case is destined never to end. Like I said before, you can delete iexplore.exe just fine, and technically "there is no IE on your system," but explorer is using IE core dlls, so explorer would break functionally if you delete those files.
Like I said earlier, if you're not happy with your shell, delete the DLLs and use WinStep or Evwm (strangely resembles twm, or any other of a slew of replacement shells for windows. Search the net, Use Google!
My bad. I thought the osx finder was a browser-type finder, but I guess I was wrong. Or did that idea end up in the dumpster with the failed Copeland project?
It's a real biography of a real (if unusual) person.
Hah! And all this time I thought that RMS didn't really exist! His image was created by the GNU project not unlike the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz! And to think I was fooled this whole time... hhahaha!
Whoa, man! You people need to visit this site, seriously. Anal-porn queen Asia Carrera's vital stats:
Wow, I am surprised. She's my new favorite porn star! =)
Finally, there was the curious nature of Linux itself. Unrestricted by design bugs (like GNU) and legal disputes (like BSD), Linux' high-speed evolution had been so unplanned, its success so accidental, that programmers closest to the software code itself didn't know what to make of it. More compilation album than operating system, it was comprised of a hacker medley of greatest hits: everything from GCC, GDB, and glibc (the GNU Project's newly developed C Library) to X (a Unix-based graphic user interface developed by MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science) to BSD-developed tools such as BIND (the Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon, which lets users substitute easy-to-remember Internet domain names for numeric IP addresses) and TCP/IP. The arch's capstone, of course, was the Linux kernel-itself a bored-out, super-charged version of Minix. Rather than building their operating system from scratch, Torvalds and his rapidly expanding Linux development team had followed the old Picasso adage, "good artists borrow; great artists steal." Or as Torvalds himself would later translate it when describing the secret of his success: "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to take credit for things other people actually do."
Using GPL code is stealing. Right on, Dick. Also, I guess that should be justification of calling it BSD/Linux, huh?
By 1993, the GNU Project's inability to deliver a working kernel was leading to problems both within the GNU Project and within the free software movement at large. A March, 1993, a Wired magazine article by Simson Garfinkel described the GNU Project as "bogged down" despite the success of the project's many tools.
<nelson>HA-HA!</nelson> Just goes to prove that one clean-cut nerdy Finnish college student can out-code the entire, unshowered GNU/Crew.
My suggestion: Don't spend a single penny on this GNU/Book. Find someone with a copy, and photocopy it! Even better yet, download a scanned copy on KaZaA. After all, who is Dick Stallman kidding, anyway? Information should be free as in speech, right?
Yes, unfortunately you do need a licensed copy of 95 to legally make later versions work they way I and many others want it to work - but for MS that is not a problem, being that they own the copyright they could make it available in any way they want. They could come out with XP light in a week if they wanted it, without the integration. That's the whole point, though, they want to shove this 'integration' down the throats of everyone that uses their OS, in order to control the internet. This is why they were convicted in the first place, and any 'remedy' that leaves them free to continue doing what they were convicted for is nothing more than a farce.
Why should MS give a fuck what anyone thinks? Not happy with their version of explorer.exe? It's called GNU/Litestep [note: the preceding link was generated by RMS-Link-Approver]
They can write explorer.exe however the fudge they want to; if someone doesn't like the little address bar at the top of the screen, they can delete explorer. Windows doesn't need explorer (and in that case it doesn't even need IE core components either) to FUNCTION; however, explorer and other apps do.
Imagine if Linux didn't come with any dependency libraries.
Does that mean that if you install gcc, the OpenOffice port, the GIMP port, and cygwin to a Windows box you have to start calling it GNU/Windows?
No. RMS is an idiot. Let's start calling it GNU/Solaris, GNU/FreeBSD, GNU/IRIX, and GNU/HP-UX while we're at it.
Yeah, while we're at it, let's outlaw web browsers as file managers all together. We should pull them from MacOSX, kill off Konqueror, eradicate anything that even looks like a web browser as a file manager.
.exe be illegal?
Some things will break imediately, but within a short period of time MS will develop a system that works - even without the additional components.
Solution:
1. Copy shdocvw.h and shdocvw.c into explorer.h and explorer.c
2. Copy mshtml.h and mshtml.c into explorer.h and explorer.c
3. Click compile!
Hey! -- it's no longer "integrated," now it's "just a shell." How can a shell
Or you could do it the easy way:
C:\> rundll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
[/mnt/win_ntfs/program files/internet explorer]% more 98lite.bat
/y "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"
deltree
Of course it CAN be done. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that by removing IE's core components, you also tend to break a lot of applications. No one seems to freakin' mention that for 98lite to COMPLETELY remove IE from Windows 98, you need to provide the Windows 95 explorer.exe, comctrl32.dll, and shell32.dll files. Note that since you own a licensed copy of Win98 doesn't entitle you to a licensed copy of those Windows 95 files.
So yeah, from a _Windows 98_ machine, it's impossible to remove all of IE's "core components" (well whatever you consider them) and still have a functioning Win98 machine, without additional modifications. You will undoubtedly break some apps, or have future apps be broken that have shdocvw.dll or mshtml.dll (a LOT) as dependencies.
Do me a favor and remove glibc from Linux and tell me how that goes. Remember Linux is "modular"!
Yeah, of course. They'll take for granted that the states were going to prove that "Windows XP Embedded: The modular version of Windows" is modular.
Also on the list of things the states were going to prove is that the milk in my Cheerios is milk and not Elmer's glue, and that my Windows XP Workstation is really running XP, not PalmOS.
There is also the stability quandry of a DLL that is sharing space with your IIS process, any fault here could cause the web server to die.
It doesn't necessarily have to run in-process.
Even a bad mod_perl implementation can bring down Apache in a similar manner; a mod_perl based perl script gone awry could bring Apache down in a hoot.
Okay, but they were due to hardware failures:
0 003
A message on the site said that its servers began experiencing problems Thursday night. Shortly after midnight, the company said it was rebuilding a "corrupt system disk."
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011207S
<sarcasm>Yep, all due to IIS.</sarcasm> (not that you said that or anything, but minds tend to wander around here...
I don't doubt it. I don't know why everyone on /. is getting their panties in a bunch, either; it's not like they are trying to hide it or anything (from the XP release notes):
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Because Microsoft has included the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software:
Copyright 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
All the legal and moral righteousness in the world isn't gonna stand up to $40 billion in cash reserves...
Just think how many jars of Crisco RMS can buy with $40 billion...
That's impossible! Most GPL software out today tries to copy/emulate Microsoft software! Yes people, that means the Microsoft software came first!
So... what was wrong with the IIS implementation in the first place? eBay is fast and works perfectly. And I don't want to hear that "IIS is insecure" bullshit; IIS is insecure in its default configuration, but not after you lock it down properly. I'm pretty sure that eBay has the resources to hire some good IIS admins. As for the backend, eBay wasn't even scripted... their main application was an in-process C++ MFC app. That equals even more speed. Combine that with IIS and you have a compact, scalable, fast web platform. And I bet they base their back database on Oracle, so that's taken care of in the MFC connector as well. Has the current implementation of eBay ever crashed? No.
WebSphere = shit. I remember the old versions of it; they probably need a gig of RAM just to run at a decent speed!! Shit, I bet server boxes that run WebSphere come with giant primer handles to jumpstart the mofo, it's so bloated. And they're gonna rewrite the whole thing in java servlets now, for "performance"?? Puh-leeze.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!"
Hello Pro-Linux troll,
Are you crazy? Since when was MySQL enterprise software? You might as well have suggested that they use MS Access. Personally I wouldn't even use MySQL to hold a database of 25 e-mail addresses; it just might buckle under the load! And you're thinking e-bay? That's a good one. PHP too, wow. Why not just suggest that people type in their own SQL queries while they're at it?
I know you can't run KDE without the tarballs but I know I can set the mimetypes for html so that an alternative browser appears and if I want can distribute a linux install doing just this (ie Mozilla appearing instead of Konqueror) without comeback.
Yeah, but can you totally remove Konqueror, install a new browser, and still have a file manager? No; even if you could, what would you have? It wouldn't be KDE anymore, it would be some mangled hunk-of-junk. Then you would take all your support woes to the KDE crew due to some unsupported modification that YOU did. Now just relate this back to the Windows world with IE as the shell. Case in point; without IE you're potentially screwed if you want to use Explorer.
Personally, I don't know what the big freakin deal is with people having IE installed by default. It's like saying that people would have a total cow over Konqueror being KDE's file manager as well as a web browser. If you want to use Moz be my freakin guest and install it, but the other browser is still your file manager.
You honestly don't see how this example is an argument against you?
Since until recently it was impossible to uninstall IIS, it *is* a windows security hole. As in if you run windows (nt/2k anyway) you have this security problem.
Please, for the benefit of everyone else reading, please get a f**king clue before posting again. That is undoubtedly the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. IIS was always an optional/removable component. Always. It was never "part" of Windows; it is an installable (and likewise uninstallable) component. Although it comes installed by default on Windows 2000 Server, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from removing it!!
Not if you're on a Novell network! (Most K12 Schools are.)