Didn't say it was. When the iPod came out, replacing the batteries wasn't an option. When these guys wanted to replace the batteries in their iPod, they were told to drop $400 on a new iPod.
That, to me, seems stupid. As it did to the guys who were told to buy a new one.
It's a battery. Batteries are generally considered to be user serviceable parts. Especially on a device that doesn't work without them. When was the last time you had a non-disposable battery powered device that didn't have a replacable battery?
I almost wonder if Apple is starting to follow the Nintendo school of consumer electronics engineering...
The point of WinFS isn't that the file formats have metadata associated with them, rather you can assign whatever metadata you want with any random file, and then organize those files based on the metadata.
The whole point of such a system is not to force the user to conceive and manually maintain a file structure. And once you create that file structure, you are limited to dealing with the data it contains by that file structure.
Sure, it may have seemed like a brilliant idea 18 hours ago when you decided to re-organize your mp3's into folders by artist, then album, and then song. Until you come across a song with two artists in it. Or when you want to look for a specific album but don't remember who sang it.
The point is that manually organizing your files is a cludge to do what you really want to do: be able to find what you're looking for quickly. Since it is a manual process, it is slow, error prone, and a royal pain in the ass.
That has nothing to do with determining if Apple has a monopoly.
What you state would have something to do with Apple violating anti-trust laws. Apple is no "angel" of a company -- there are lots of shitty things Apple has done to their competition and their customers. However, I don't know if any of them may or may not be anti-trust violations.
Fact of the matter is, nobody cares, because allowing a market to be defined so narrowly would be rediculous (the market is operating systems, period). You could just as well say that Pepsi has a monopoly on the Pepsi market (but the market is "soda", period)... For the Microsoft anti-trust trial the market should have been "operating systems", not "operating systems for desktop x86 computers".
...and only if the spoofed url + & + the target website are less than 255 characters; otherwise it'll crash or (depending on how devious the offending party is) start running code that was sent as an url...
The monopoly "definition" was not a "monopoly in the total personal computer market"; they were declared a monopoly in the x86 os market; it eliminated non x86 based computers.
So, using the same logic as the people who brought forth the original anti-trust suit, Apple has a monopoly in the OS market for Apple/ppc based computers.
captures my sentiments. I know, shared libraries create efficiencies, but at least for me, at too high of a price in terms of security. It may very well be a personal bias, but I'd rather spend a bit more on extra disk space and RAM for the extra security of more compartementalized applications.
When you statically link libraries, each time you get a security fix for a library you have to rebuild ALL of the effected applications and redeploy them. Forget one, and you're still vulnerable. With dynamically linked libraries, when you replace the library all of your applications get the fix.
I don't see a security benefit to statically linking a library instead of using a shared library -- if the shared library can be compromised, any of the applications that statically link to that library can be compromised as well.
Some of them do (see the Office2k3 installer). Most don't. Others ask you to reboot the machine for the hell of it (the company I used to work for went this route; the guy working on the installer was a freek'in idiot).
What, you think it's BETTER to take a file being used by an application and replace it with another one? WHILE IT IS RUNNING? What planet are you living on? Worst. Idea. Ever.
I've actually seen some installers ask you to shutdown applications that are using files it needs to replace, which avoids the reboot problem. But most of them just go the "ask the user to reboot" route. I've also seen installers that ask you to reboot your computer for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Getting back on track somewhat, Mozilla doesn't have the problem because it doesn't share any components with other applications. Try installing a new version of Mozilla on top of an old one while it's running -- you'll have problems.
On linux, every version of every library is given a unique filename. So you've got like 50,000 versions of the same library on your machine (which may or may not be a good idea).
I don't have any recent experience with Macs, but my experience with them in high school lead me to believe that the concept of a 'shared library' didn't exist on them. Everything was bundled into the application. And reboots were required anytime you dropped something in the system folder, not just OS upgrades.
So if you think that shared non-statically linked libraries are bad, then yes, you won't like the Windows way of doing things.
Why should I have to reboot, if I patch my browser or e-mail client?
Because one of the file(s) replaced by the installer is in use by another applicaiton, and the old version can't be removed until it is no longer in use. When most installers run, they schedule a task to run when the computer starts up to remove the old file and replace it with the new one.
I currently have over 80 items that show up under add/remove programs. I have installed/uninstalled a rather large number of applications since I started using this machine.
There were some applications that would easily crash the computer... WordPerfect was one of them. The last version of Netscape 4.x was another (the one before that worked perfectly... the crashing is what finally pulled me over to IE).
I will definately agree that 2000 is much nicer than 98 though. I'm just saying that if you know what you're doing (instead of clicking random buttons on dialogs when they come up) you don't have to reinstall on a regular basis.
No, but when we fuck up we should own up to it instead of being a bunch of pussies and pretending we invaded because Saddam was did mean things to his citizens.
I've been using it since I bought this computer, which was late 1998 (right after the K7 was launched...ah...I remember being able to play any game in the computer store; now I can't play any of 'em...*sigh*).
I have never reinstalled Win98 on this machine. Ever. Just installed it the one time. If you don't delete random files out of the system folder, or replace newer files with older ones you won't have any problems.
NT operating systems still implement the 16bit api subsystem that Win9x implemented. If the software followed the api spec it should still work. If the software didn't follow the api spec (ie: the supported values for an operation are 1, 2, 3 and 4, but they passed in 5) it might not.
It'd be nice if they just let it die when longhorn is released, but that's wishful thinking.
Most games designed for Win95 & 98 were just horribly horribly written, which is why they don't work. My favorite crappy games regulate animations/timing by using a software loop instead of some system clock/timer. I have this one game that was meant to run on a P90... tried it on my K7/500 -- 0.001 seconds after starting to play I'm dead.
Even if we try to assume that the nature of the tradmark remains unchanged from its origin, AIXWindows isn't a window manager -- it's a set of extensions (or a library; didn't look at it close enough to really tell) to another window manager and library (X+Motif).
No, they're floating along on more than enough fuel until their next shipment arrives. However, "more than enough" may end up being "just enough" if the next shipment is delayed in some fashion.
In other words, the excess fuel is their contingency plan -- something the pilot in question obviously didn't have.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't say it was. When the iPod came out, replacing the batteries wasn't an option. When these guys wanted to replace the batteries in their iPod, they were told to drop $400 on a new iPod.
That, to me, seems stupid. As it did to the guys who were told to buy a new one.
It's a battery. Batteries are generally considered to be user serviceable parts. Especially on a device that doesn't work without them. When was the last time you had a non-disposable battery powered device that didn't have a replacable battery?
I almost wonder if Apple is starting to follow the Nintendo school of consumer electronics engineering...
The point isn't that the battery went dead, it's that you couldn't replace the battery.
When was the last time you ran into a dealer that said they wouldn't replace the engine in your car after it blew up?
The point of WinFS isn't that the file formats have metadata associated with them, rather you can assign whatever metadata you want with any random file, and then organize those files based on the metadata.
The whole point of such a system is not to force the user to conceive and manually maintain a file structure. And once you create that file structure, you are limited to dealing with the data it contains by that file structure.
Sure, it may have seemed like a brilliant idea 18 hours ago when you decided to re-organize your mp3's into folders by artist, then album, and then song. Until you come across a song with two artists in it. Or when you want to look for a specific album but don't remember who sang it.
The point is that manually organizing your files is a cludge to do what you really want to do: be able to find what you're looking for quickly. Since it is a manual process, it is slow, error prone, and a royal pain in the ass.
That has nothing to do with determining if Apple has a monopoly.
What you state would have something to do with Apple violating anti-trust laws. Apple is no "angel" of a company -- there are lots of shitty things Apple has done to their competition and their customers. However, I don't know if any of them may or may not be anti-trust violations.
Fact of the matter is, nobody cares, because allowing a market to be defined so narrowly would be rediculous (the market is operating systems, period). You could just as well say that Pepsi has a monopoly on the Pepsi market (but the market is "soda", period)... For the Microsoft anti-trust trial the market should have been "operating systems", not "operating systems for desktop x86 computers".
...and only if the spoofed url + & + the target website are less than 255 characters; otherwise it'll crash or (depending on how devious the offending party is) start running code that was sent as an url...
I wouldn't be cheering for the "open source community" just yet, considering the "patch" has an exploitable buffer overflow...
The monopoly "definition" was not a "monopoly in the total personal computer market"; they were declared a monopoly in the x86 os market; it eliminated non x86 based computers.
So, using the same logic as the people who brought forth the original anti-trust suit, Apple has a monopoly in the OS market for Apple/ppc based computers.
Funny, the article you link to generally refers to hardware/drivers that don't perform to spec...
Microsoft currently doesn't have a 64bit version of the .Net runtime for 1.0 or 1.1. Whidbey (.Net 2.0) is supposed to ship with a 64bit version.
You're assuming someone ever gets around writing one...
Of course, to get the Windows programming documentation, you have to pay the MSDN subscription.
No, you don't.
MSDN can be accessed for free via the web. The Win32 API Reference is probably the Win32 programmer's best friend.
Though if you have to hunt for something on the site I recommend using Google. The MSDN search blows.
captures my sentiments. I know, shared libraries create efficiencies, but at least for me, at too high of a price in terms of security. It may very well be a personal bias, but I'd rather spend a bit more on extra disk space and RAM for the extra security of more compartementalized applications.
When you statically link libraries, each time you get a security fix for a library you have to rebuild ALL of the effected applications and redeploy them. Forget one, and you're still vulnerable. With dynamically linked libraries, when you replace the library all of your applications get the fix.
I don't see a security benefit to statically linking a library instead of using a shared library -- if the shared library can be compromised, any of the applications that statically link to that library can be compromised as well.
Some of them do (see the Office2k3 installer). Most don't. Others ask you to reboot the machine for the hell of it (the company I used to work for went this route; the guy working on the installer was a freek'in idiot).
What, you think it's BETTER to take a file being used by an application and replace it with another one? WHILE IT IS RUNNING? What planet are you living on? Worst. Idea. Ever.
I've actually seen some installers ask you to shutdown applications that are using files it needs to replace, which avoids the reboot problem. But most of them just go the "ask the user to reboot" route. I've also seen installers that ask you to reboot your computer for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Getting back on track somewhat, Mozilla doesn't have the problem because it doesn't share any components with other applications. Try installing a new version of Mozilla on top of an old one while it's running -- you'll have problems.
On linux, every version of every library is given a unique filename. So you've got like 50,000 versions of the same library on your machine (which may or may not be a good idea).
I don't have any recent experience with Macs, but my experience with them in high school lead me to believe that the concept of a 'shared library' didn't exist on them. Everything was bundled into the application. And reboots were required anytime you dropped something in the system folder, not just OS upgrades.
So if you think that shared non-statically linked libraries are bad, then yes, you won't like the Windows way of doing things.
Win2k3 was released after the trustworth computing initiative.
Why should I have to reboot, if I patch my browser or e-mail client?
Because one of the file(s) replaced by the installer is in use by another applicaiton, and the old version can't be removed until it is no longer in use. When most installers run, they schedule a task to run when the computer starts up to remove the old file and replace it with the new one.
So, if you try to fuck over GPL'd source intentionally, you're ok. If you do it by accident, you're screwed? Doesn't sound right to me.
I currently have over 80 items that show up under add/remove programs. I have installed/uninstalled a rather large number of applications since I started using this machine.
... WordPerfect was one of them. The last version of Netscape 4.x was another (the one before that worked perfectly ... the crashing is what finally pulled me over to IE).
There were some applications that would easily crash the computer
I will definately agree that 2000 is much nicer than 98 though. I'm just saying that if you know what you're doing (instead of clicking random buttons on dialogs when they come up) you don't have to reinstall on a regular basis.
No, but when we fuck up we should own up to it instead of being a bunch of pussies and pretending we invaded because Saddam was did mean things to his citizens.
I've been using it since I bought this computer, which was late 1998 (right after the K7 was launched...ah...I remember being able to play any game in the computer store; now I can't play any of 'em...*sigh*).
I have never reinstalled Win98 on this machine. Ever. Just installed it the one time. If you don't delete random files out of the system folder, or replace newer files with older ones you won't have any problems.
NT operating systems still implement the 16bit api subsystem that Win9x implemented. If the software followed the api spec it should still work. If the software didn't follow the api spec (ie: the supported values for an operation are 1, 2, 3 and 4, but they passed in 5) it might not.
... tried it on my K7/500 -- 0.001 seconds after starting to play I'm dead.
It'd be nice if they just let it die when longhorn is released, but that's wishful thinking.
Most games designed for Win95 & 98 were just horribly horribly written, which is why they don't work. My favorite crappy games regulate animations/timing by using a software loop instead of some system clock/timer. I have this one game that was meant to run on a P90
Even if we try to assume that the nature of the tradmark remains unchanged from its origin, AIXWindows isn't a window manager -- it's a set of extensions (or a library; didn't look at it close enough to really tell) to another window manager and library (X+Motif).
AIXWindows is not an operating system. It is a set of 'enhancements' to X/Motif.
What companies out there use "Windows" in the title of an operating system product?
No, they're floating along on more than enough fuel until their next shipment arrives. However, "more than enough" may end up being "just enough" if the next shipment is delayed in some fashion.
In other words, the excess fuel is their contingency plan -- something the pilot in question obviously didn't have.