...or maybe they haven't done any testing with Linux...(seeing how the general MS attitude towards linux is "not to be used anywhere inside the company", and testing w/Linux would require them to use it).
As one of the other posters alluded too, developers LOVE virtual pc for debugging apps on legacy platforms (Win9x/ME). At least I do. It also makes testing software on various platforms MUCH easier (especially w/automated testing) while using fewer machines.
I'm actually very impressed with VPC. It is a very slick piece of software; only problem is that it is slow as dirt...:) (no surprise there)
And your own argument shows exactly how Microsoft illegally monopolized the browser market. Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away for "free", when in fact it was not free, they simply rolled the price into the operating system. They REQUIRED that all computers with Windows pre-installed MUST come with IE bundled.
* Did it cost microsoft money for each copy of IE they distributed (ie: liscense fees to third parties)? Nope. * Did they have to ship an extra cd or use extra packaging to get the product out there? Nope. Did the price of windows increase when IE was integrated? Nope. * Could you download it off their website for free? Yup. * Did it cost you anything (other than time) to download it from their website? Nope. * Were competing products being given away for free? Yup. * When IE became integrated into Windows, was IE the only thing that used the html rendering engine? Nope. (all the explorer windows use the html rendering engine -- all those icons 'n stuff are rendered by ie's html rendering engine; all your help files, rendered by ie's html rendering engine; the ie rendering engine is used all over the place -- third party apps use it like crazy, and it is a classic example of PROPER code reuse -- instead of re-inventing a rendering engine for each component, they created a shared library). * Is IE anything more than a tiny shell for an html rendering engine? Nope.
Back to the true market value", yeah, that is difficult to determine. However it is indisputable in law that Microsoft HAS illegally abused their monopoly position, and it would be absurd to suggest that the illegal abuse has not artificially inflated the market price of the operating system to some unknown extent.
I think it's pretty hard to make such a claim when the only competing product on the market costs more.
OS X costs money when you buy it with hardware too, Apple just chooses to not disclose what portion of the price is for the OS that you're paying when you buy a mac. Same as Dell doesn't disclose what portion of the computer's price is for windows when you make a purchase (and I guarantee you it isn't a price you can get through normal retail channels, OEM or not).
I couldn't find crap on the masterlock site (who on earth can navigate that site?), but the Kryptonite Lock site doesn't come with an anti-theft guarantee of any sort. You can buy theft-protection from them for an extra fee (and it isn't a one time fee, it's a reoccuring fee), which is basically like buying insurance for your bike.
The lock company ain't gonna do shit. They'll sure as hell try and sell you the more expensive version with thicker metal that's harder to cut through...
It does lock me into Java, but not into any particular vendor. There are perfectly good independent Java implementations from companies other than Sun.
Java is not an open standard -- you're locked into a technology controlled by Sun in much the same way that when you write.Net code you're using technology controlled by Microsoft. The fact that there are non-Sun implemented versions of that standard doesn't mean jack -- Sun is still at the wheel.
Someone pointed out the existence of Mono, an independent implementation of part of.Net, but it does not appear to me to be sufficiently complete to allow me to build complete systems without having to use some Microsoft components.
That was the state of Java on Linux for an eon too. It'll get done, eventually.
That's true, but it's not necessarily the case the.Net remoting is a better solution, although it may be in some situations.
It is *a* solution. Believe it or not, it's not a bad one either. And if you're going to be writing code that runs on a Win32 platform, it is definately worth spending more than 5 minutes learning about what you can and can't do with it.
In other words you're saying that the question isn't using.Net and.Net remoting (using RMI locks you into Java using your logic). Your question is a decision between using a remoting solution vs a webservice solution.
The problem is that webservices don't offer the performance some applications require.
You wrote that it forces you into using.Net for both sides and that's a problem. The person who replied to you wrote that it doesn't really matter, because both ends were going to end up being written in.Net anway.
Seems to me like he did a pretty good job of contradicting what you wrote.
But if that isn't enough, I'll go one further. The.Net remoting mechanism is pluggable. You can write code to perform remoting via RMI, so the other end of your.Net code can actually be written in Java.
I once printed out some maps for a trip I was taking to Seattle using yahoo... the maps seemed easier to read than mapquest maps, so why the hell not.
So I get there and start driving to my destination, only to discover that the directions on the map had me driving the wrong direction down one way streets.
I also noticed that the maps did not indicate which street were one way vs bi-directional.
Unfortunately (from your perspective anyway) 64bit versions of windows are in the final phases of beta testing, and it seems to be working rather well from every report I've read...
More likely what would happen is that the machine would spontaniously reboot...
I worked with a really crappy piece of hardware + drivers for awhile at my last job... certain sequences of operations would cause the computer to spontaniously reboot. It was really fun to figure out what those sequences were too! honest!
Rebooting was the worst problem. The drivers leaking memory in 12mb increments after a certain sequence of operations was the second...
Re:File now or file later
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
Suppose you go and move your files (say the 'photo me sophie' now needs to go to 'photo me annoying-ex' folder:-D ) are you going to be redoing all of your indexes and everything to support that move operation? (Considering right now all you'd have to do is rename and possible move the folder [maybe to the 'trash'] to get the job done.)
Updating that information would just be a sql update statement. How hard the UI to use it is a different story all together.
RPC is a gateway into many services inside of window.
Saying that they "still haven't fix that rpc hole" is like saying that they "still haven't fixed that windows hole".
The bug you are referring to exploits a defect the SMB (windows filesharing) authentication code. The previous two patches covered different problems inside of DCOM (ie: one was not related to the other, aside from the fact it was exploitable).
If you can figure out the private part of the server's SSL certificate based on the public keys exchanged between the two machines in a reasonable period of time, SSL is broken.
Because it is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. An attacker can monitor communications: he can capture the random string sent by the MSN server, he can capture the response string sent by the client, and can use that information to try and crack the password in a reasonable period of time (there was an article a few months back about a group who managed to brute force MD5 hashes in a very short period of time; don't remember the exact interval, but it was well less than an hour).
SSL uses a shared secret to enchange information, and is not vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
Lots of stuff flows through RPC. Calling it an RPC flaw isn't entirely accurate. The last flaw was related to DCOM. The flaw you are referring to is related to SMB authentication (windows file sharing).
However, we're talking about a port of an application written on Win32.
You don't honestly think that MS would completely rewrite an application that took thousands of people to create for the PC for the Mac do you? Especially considering how substantially smaller that market is than the PC market...
I'd be willing to wager that the Mac version consists of a bunch of Win32->MacOS wrapper libraries built into the application... And I'd be willing to bet that the MacOS design vs Win32 design does not make such a task "easy."
Out of curiosity, which version of MacOS did Apple add hebrew support, and what was the last version of MacOS available when MS released the Mac version of Word?
Such questions (where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, what is the basis of morality) are the topics of class discussion and philosophy, not teachings to students about "the way things are."
Talking about right vs wrong (for those that don't follow, "moral relativism") does not require advocating a particular relgious stance or faith. Morals are not based on what you believe in or your faith system -- they are your own sense of what is right and what is wrong.
When you teach people killing is wrong, you aren't taught "Killing is wrong because God says so", you are taught "Killing is wrong because it hurts people", or "Killing is wrong because it's against the law", or "Killing is wrong because society says so." If you have a child which needs to be taught morals beyond what society considers right vs wrong, then that is your job as a parent -- not the schools.
Moral ambiguities (ex: Is it wrong to steal from people who can afford it?) are not taught to a class, rather a class discusses the question.
Athiests have the same moral sense as anyone else, because they were raised in the same society as everyone else. To suggest that they cannot because God isn't involved is ludicrous, and evidence to the contrary can be found all around you.
I should also point out that the e in "establishment" as written in the constitution is not capitolized, which is an additional distinction which supports the arguement that "an establishment of religion" does not refer soley to an established religion.
Slashdot Mirror
...or maybe they haven't done any testing with Linux...(seeing how the general MS attitude towards linux is "not to be used anywhere inside the company", and testing w/Linux would require them to use it).
I suspect it'll work just fine.
As one of the other posters alluded too, developers LOVE virtual pc for debugging apps on legacy platforms (Win9x/ME). At least I do. It also makes testing software on various platforms MUCH easier (especially w/automated testing) while using fewer machines.
I'm actually very impressed with VPC. It is a very slick piece of software; only problem is that it is slow as dirt...:) (no surprise there)
And your own argument shows exactly how Microsoft illegally monopolized the browser market. Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away for "free", when in fact it was not free, they simply rolled the price into the operating system. They REQUIRED that all computers with Windows pre-installed MUST come with IE bundled.
* Did it cost microsoft money for each copy of IE they distributed (ie: liscense fees to third parties)? Nope.
* Did they have to ship an extra cd or use extra packaging to get the product out there? Nope. Did the price of windows increase when IE was integrated? Nope.
* Could you download it off their website for free? Yup.
* Did it cost you anything (other than time) to download it from their website? Nope.
* Were competing products being given away for free? Yup.
* When IE became integrated into Windows, was IE the only thing that used the html rendering engine? Nope. (all the explorer windows use the html rendering engine -- all those icons 'n stuff are rendered by ie's html rendering engine; all your help files, rendered by ie's html rendering engine; the ie rendering engine is used all over the place -- third party apps use it like crazy, and it is a classic example of PROPER code reuse -- instead of re-inventing a rendering engine for each component, they created a shared library).
* Is IE anything more than a tiny shell for an html rendering engine? Nope.
Back to the true market value", yeah, that is difficult to determine. However it is indisputable in law that Microsoft HAS illegally abused their monopoly position, and it would be absurd to suggest that the illegal abuse has not artificially inflated the market price of the operating system to some unknown extent.
I think it's pretty hard to make such a claim when the only competing product on the market costs more.
Where hardware in this case is a free ADI power cable splitter. The buying with hardware requirement is a joke.
OS X costs money when you buy it with hardware too, Apple just chooses to not disclose what portion of the price is for the OS that you're paying when you buy a mac. Same as Dell doesn't disclose what portion of the computer's price is for windows when you make a purchase (and I guarantee you it isn't a price you can get through normal retail channels, OEM or not).
No, the true market value of the home edition of windows xp isn't $200, hence the reason you can buy it for under $100.
If you'd like something to compare it with, feel free to wander on over to the apple store and buy OS X for $130.
I couldn't find crap on the masterlock site (who on earth can navigate that site?), but the Kryptonite Lock site doesn't come with an anti-theft guarantee of any sort. You can buy theft-protection from them for an extra fee (and it isn't a one time fee, it's a reoccuring fee), which is basically like buying insurance for your bike.
The lock company ain't gonna do shit. They'll sure as hell try and sell you the more expensive version with thicker metal that's harder to cut through ...
It does lock me into Java, but not into any particular vendor. There are perfectly good independent Java implementations from companies other than Sun.
.Net code you're using technology controlled by Microsoft. The fact that there are non-Sun implemented versions of that standard doesn't mean jack -- Sun is still at the wheel.
.Net, but it does not appear to me to be sufficiently complete to allow me to build complete systems without having to use some Microsoft components.
.Net remoting is a better solution, although it may be in some situations.
Java is not an open standard -- you're locked into a technology controlled by Sun in much the same way that when you write
Someone pointed out the existence of Mono, an independent implementation of part of
That was the state of Java on Linux for an eon too. It'll get done, eventually.
That's true, but it's not necessarily the case the
It is *a* solution. Believe it or not, it's not a bad one either. And if you're going to be writing code that runs on a Win32 platform, it is definately worth spending more than 5 minutes learning about what you can and can't do with it.
In other words you're saying that the question isn't using .Net and .Net remoting (using RMI locks you into Java using your logic). Your question is a decision between using a remoting solution vs a webservice solution.
The problem is that webservices don't offer the performance some applications require.
You wrote that it forces you into using .Net for both sides and that's a problem. The person who replied to you wrote that it doesn't really matter, because both ends were going to end up being written in .Net anway.
.Net remoting mechanism is pluggable. You can write code to perform remoting via RMI, so the other end of your .Net code can actually be written in Java.
Seems to me like he did a pretty good job of contradicting what you wrote.
But if that isn't enough, I'll go one further. The
I once printed out some maps for a trip I was taking to Seattle using yahoo ... the maps seemed easier to read than mapquest maps, so why the hell not.
...
So I get there and start driving to my destination, only to discover that the directions on the map had me driving the wrong direction down one way streets.
I also noticed that the maps did not indicate which street were one way vs bi-directional.
I ended up buying some maps from a gas station
Unfortunately (from your perspective anyway) 64bit versions of windows are in the final phases of beta testing, and it seems to be working rather well from every report I've read ...
More likely what would happen is that the machine would spontaniously reboot...
... certain sequences of operations would cause the computer to spontaniously reboot. It was really fun to figure out what those sequences were too! honest!
...
I worked with a really crappy piece of hardware + drivers for awhile at my last job
Rebooting was the worst problem. The drivers leaking memory in 12mb increments after a certain sequence of operations was the second
Suppose you go and move your files (say the 'photo me sophie' now needs to go to 'photo me annoying-ex' folder :-D ) are you going to be redoing all of your indexes and everything to support that move operation? (Considering right now all you'd have to do is rename and possible move the folder [maybe to the 'trash'] to get the job done.)
Updating that information would just be a sql update statement. How hard the UI to use it is a different story all together.
RPC is a gateway into many services inside of window.
Saying that they "still haven't fix that rpc hole" is like saying that they "still haven't fixed that windows hole".
The bug you are referring to exploits a defect the SMB (windows filesharing) authentication code. The previous two patches covered different problems inside of DCOM (ie: one was not related to the other, aside from the fact it was exploitable).
If you can figure out the private part of the server's SSL certificate based on the public keys exchanged between the two machines in a reasonable period of time, SSL is broken.
To date, I haven't seen such a claim made.
Because it is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. An attacker can monitor communications: he can capture the random string sent by the MSN server, he can capture the response string sent by the client, and can use that information to try and crack the password in a reasonable period of time (there was an article a few months back about a group who managed to brute force MD5 hashes in a very short period of time; don't remember the exact interval, but it was well less than an hour).
SSL uses a shared secret to enchange information, and is not vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
Lots of stuff flows through RPC. Calling it an RPC flaw isn't entirely accurate. The last flaw was related to DCOM. The flaw you are referring to is related to SMB authentication (windows file sharing).
Err, typo ... "color budget" should be "cola budget"
Their monthly color budget is more along the lines of $700,000/month...($8M a year). :)
However, we're talking about a port of an application written on Win32.
You don't honestly think that MS would completely rewrite an application that took thousands of people to create for the PC for the Mac do you? Especially considering how substantially smaller that market is than the PC market...
I'd be willing to wager that the Mac version consists of a bunch of Win32->MacOS wrapper libraries built into the application... And I'd be willing to bet that the MacOS design vs Win32 design does not make such a task "easy."
Does Office run in Virtual PC, or is it a native OSX application?
If it's a native OSX application, does OSX have much in the way of bidi support?
Out of curiosity, which version of MacOS did Apple add hebrew support, and what was the last version of MacOS available when MS released the Mac version of Word?
Such questions (where did we come from, what is the purpose of life, what is the basis of morality) are the topics of class discussion and philosophy, not teachings to students about "the way things are."
Talking about right vs wrong (for those that don't follow, "moral relativism") does not require advocating a particular relgious stance or faith. Morals are not based on what you believe in or your faith system -- they are your own sense of what is right and what is wrong.
When you teach people killing is wrong, you aren't taught "Killing is wrong because God says so", you are taught "Killing is wrong because it hurts people", or "Killing is wrong because it's against the law", or "Killing is wrong because society says so." If you have a child which needs to be taught morals beyond what society considers right vs wrong, then that is your job as a parent -- not the schools.
Moral ambiguities (ex: Is it wrong to steal from people who can afford it?) are not taught to a class, rather a class discusses the question.
Athiests have the same moral sense as anyone else, because they were raised in the same society as everyone else. To suggest that they cannot because God isn't involved is ludicrous, and evidence to the contrary can be found all around you.
I should also point out that the e in "establishment" as written in the constitution is not capitolized, which is an additional distinction which supports the arguement that "an establishment of religion" does not refer soley to an established religion.