MS might have an interest in this suit not being thrown out. It could "in good faith" pretend to negotiate a settlement until Vista is nearly really ready to be released.
If Symatec should resist, MS can cite their efforts and the Supreme court decision to have the suit blocked. For MS this could be a real win, because no longer would the delay be attributed to their lack of execution. Moreover, a premature release to avoid the former critique could open them to further attacks should the software have easily discovered flaws.
Perhaps some will continue to complain, but the focus will no longer be solely upon the deficiencies of MS real or imagined.
I own a IBM T-30 that under really light use developed two cracks in the case. The crappy Gateway I leased and hauled around everywhere for over two years only developed one case crack. Moreover, the latter had hard use.
The only positive comment is that the IBM unit is still technically useful running Linux, whereas the Gateway with the then new Windows 95 ceased to have any utility to me a full six months prior to the lease expiration - and I was doing Windows type custom coding for clients at that time.
as describing their actions; sure then I agree that it would be certainly reasonable to quit the finger pointing at the inferior IE.
Until that happens, and the fanbois rage for the true one and only Microsoft, why not cite some numbers. Like much of the statistical data showing Firefox losing several tenths of points in popularity, what's the harm. Just as meaningless or probably less, because it simply a total count. Moreover, they try to not recount upgrades.
Somehow I find it hard to believe this person's concern is sincere. So go to MS and convince them to stop the crap marketing and mafia like "marketing" tactics. Then I am sure Firefox will cease citing meaningless numbers. Quid pro Quo
I would not surf without either Adblock or Flashblock. Despite this dynamic duo powers, there are still Asian sites that I will not tolerate, with their excesses of flashy clutter.
I do not block everything, just the most intrusive. Hence, I selectively chose the ones to suppress with Adblock, whereas Flashblock may be blanket coverage it stops the cpu from approaching maximum levels of usage.
Oddly of all the winners, I have not even experimented with even one those listed.
I have been given solid information that indeed the Russian exchange was indeed based upon Windows*. Moreover, it described in detail the tool set used.
Nonetheless, to take so called tech babble about the imminent attack of a worm expected to fire on the 3rd of every month to imply that a trading system was or even could be imperiled by a similar stupid attack mechanism has to assume the lowest level of competence was in charge. I tend to assume those in charge of critical systems are by nature both more knowledgeable and cautious.
While I was obviously wrong on all counts, I think an article discussing a failure of a trading system should be much more explicit. Unix and Unix like operating systems are not immune to break ins, thus, it's nice to know this was not one of those cases.
Thanks for the reference, it certainly appears that this is a strictly Windows system.
Just read elsewhere that in Eastern Europe (and I guess Russia) FOSS lags due to inertia and distrust of authority (and implicitly lack of knowledge). Look up Ester Dyson - says MS puts effort in training programs there, hence, their success.
Quite a while ago, I got a chilling view of how much effort MS was putting into perfecting "fallover" coding where for example a database server failed, would be automatically replaced by a mirrored standin. Though these efforts were targeted at database applications, which trading systems are a natural subset, in principle if this program were a success there would be little reason not to use Windows needing 24/7. However, what makes you think the Russian eschange would need such round the clock support?
The reason not to have Windows in charge would security related. However, even there one could argue that if set up properly that concern would be obviated. Nonetheless, the tardy response that characterizes Microsoft too aptly (other than in rhetoric) and cost would be the reasons not to use their option.
Windows has improved, so much so that the first time I used Windows NT 4 on assignment I did not reboot the machine, because there were no machine lockups. I last saw a blue screen of death on a network back when Windows was at best an environment: Win 3.x. It was only later when my results sets returned radically altered, without seeing any reason in my query code changes, taught me that Windows had developed a more subtle failure mode. Thereafter, reboots every week whether needed or not.
One last point: no where in the article could I find what OS was actually being used. Are you presuming it was Windows or did you see some text I missed?
You are assuming that they are running Windows based only upon the breakin seems to fit the pattern. However, nowhere could I find any reference to the OS employed. Did I miss it?
Other OSs are not immune to security breaches. Moreover, I am surprised any securities trading firm would use anything other than a Unix like OS. Hence, if Windows were really used it would be a significant portion of the story that was neglected, i.e.: "how did it get there?".
Does anyone know with certainty that Windows (whatever name) was the OS used in this instance?
I read this elsewhere, hence, it's not my original thought: why were the antivirus, etc. manufactures so silent?
If they ignore such an egregious attack on the majority of systems in use, why should they expect credence with their PR campaign about the next dire threats facing computing?
I share your wonder about others reading carefully, however, not just limited to the license. I am noticing many stories (not just on/.) where the summaries are inconsistent with the cited article content and/or linked information that is contradictory to the poster's thrust.
[I was tempted too to wonder about why were Oracle's terms deemed superior to MS routine offers of 90 day test version of SQL Server. For me there are several turn offs to the latter option, but here many users might opt for its try out terms.]
On the Linux download side, the license was explicitly limited to a beta version with a cut off date along with the option of an announced revocation by either party. If that condition is just not legal boiler plate a free, limited version of the Oracle database has a short life expectancy.
Either there was the threat to revoke the patents per se, or they were ignored in order to produce war planes for the conflict.
The purpose there was more directly to take lives, in the case in point: here it is to save lives, hence, in my mind this has at least an equivalent moral weight of the incident I cite.
Let me give you one reason Microsoft might see an advantage despite the many down sides you have listed, that is, one less site pushing Netscape/Firefox to its users.
You might not think that would suffice as a reason for MS to blow excess funds, but there are signs that something about Firefox has some factions within Microsoft very fearful. Perhaps that fear is justified.
While I agree in principle on too many people being overly receptive only to the messages they prefer to hear, that argument may not be totally applicable here.
I failed in my search to find a blog entry where a former Microsoft insider (and still sympathetic to MS) had a bleaker assessment than what you would call reality. [Search in [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/%5D for a writeup on why he did not think.Net led anywhere. Earlier than Jan. 2, 2005.]
As another comment that stated (which I was tempted to reply to) posed the damaging effect of MS dropping all those developers. it has happened before and will again whenever MS thinks its best interests are threatened. All those that follow the present trends blindly with no independent analysis are open to suffer the consequences.
Even with preparation (due diligence) the future is hard to predict.
First let me explain the delay. I was composing a reply, that may have been harsher than this response when my keyboard lost its ability to render a significant set of characters needed to respond. I had spilled coffee earlier, after a trip where I purchased a new keyboard and other items, again my response was halted when a momentary power drop dimmed the lights and rebooted all our computers. Afterwards, I just had other activities. So that's the reason for my retarded answering.
I noticed several points you seemed to have missed in their inherent significance. Moreover, I sense too you have very little rigorous scientific training. You might be an engineer, but your real knowledge of how science works seems lacking. This is not an attack, it is an observation [also, very few will even see this note so no need to take offense - none intended]. First, let's take a portion of the quoting of my post.
"... where do you expect the financing of the basic science..." You mentioned this and here I was referring to the break through(s) necessary to accomplish (or even to contemplate the possibility) the tasks you predicate. Setting a goal is applied science or engineering where most if not all the basics are pretty well solved. Here we have no real knowledge that the required efficiencies will ever be practical. [I saw your suggestion regarding the solar sails - it would take much, much more than that. Have you ever sailed, going against the wind? It is much harder (tacking).] Basic science research is not goal orientated, however, many times it can bring forth insights to seemingly unrelated problems. Break through insights are disruptive, at very least to those in that scientific field. The society we currently reside, has been suppressing findings that do not conform to their predilictions. Many of these are applied in nature. Moreover, this same elite has no use for other current, best scientific results. Tell me again how these people are going to finance really basic research that could undermine their most basic views on life and their role.
Human history is stewn with instances where society not only stagnated, but regressed from their former states. I am not talking about the problems the Greeks had when they looked back at their 'Golden Age', and ignored the one they were passing through. I have more in mind the theocracy that held sway in Europe to the point where they destroyed the vestige of the Roman Empire that persisted beyond the time theirs fell. Moreover, these same types pushed the level of knowledge further into regression.
So while you may not think that closed minds that ignore the best scientific knowledge, particularly when some have professed the goal to persist in space exploration, I think you are in error. Moreover, you should look at some of those speaking in your name that are pushing to the extreme views in concert with big business interests that would rather avoid "unnecessary regulatory" expenses.
You have no idea how difficult it can be to accomplish seemingly trivial tasks. Unless, you have done research, it is shocking to find how little reliable data points you can base you work upon. Moreover, earlier publications of results can simply be wrong or misguided.
Now combine the above with some radically different finding, it may be resisted fanatically by the "scientific community" (or specialty). Think about how some breakthrough is finally accepted by the evolved scientific community - that significant breakthrough could easily be suppressed by a political elite or the general population that's upset with its implications. Such a response is more likely where religious views hold a very significant role. [To name a few: non-centric univerise with the Earth as the center, biological evolution, geological age of the earth, and cosmology (blows biblical age of the earth even with "Inteligent Design").]
Regarding the last major point (theocratic control), let's consider a counter example: Islamic sci
RE: "that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now..."
When a significant majority in one of the advanced space faring states believes the earth is no older than 7,000 years. where do you expect the financing of the basic science necessary to even contemplate the tasks you outline? Scientific reasoning and knowledge is being devalued continuously for more faith based "logic". Moreover, for the immediate future those following the latter, easier path will live the more comfortable life.
So give me one observable trend that might support your overly optimistic view? The Chinese and their will to awe the world with feats in space and the military? Unlikely, in an oppressive society where the elite holds power tenuously most of their efforts are very short term (more like five year plans). Their accomplishments may be more mass killings or their fading away, at best.
RE: "all about return vs. investment..."
Would it not be wiser (and in some areas the trend) to do more with less? The throw away societies we have will burn out their energy supplies long before they are able to go elsewhere and do it again only bigger (and better?).
RE: "Its especially premature to knock the idea..." Sorry, not when so little real thought or knowledge lies behind the blabber. Look at one of the responses just below your message. That person at least knows what s/he is talking about.
The first problem is that the wrong file is downloaded: firefox-1.5b1.tar.gz
whereas the pattern I expected for the alpha was: firefox-1.5b1.installer.tar.gz
When the file I downloaded was extracted it seemed to create a new firefox directory above the Desktop and the startup script calls the location where the alpha resides. Hence trying to run it brings up my Alpha 2 version. I attempted a source type installation where it failed immediately at the./configure step. Anyone have any ideas how I can get the beta running?
I already have a firefox-installer directory from my Alpha 2 installation, however, I cannot believe Mozilla can assume every tester will have had a previous test version installed.
So far in most respects I find Deer Park even at the Alpha 2 stage better than 1.0.6, however, it is not without flaws. I woold like to see if some of the problems I encountered have been fixed.
I am using Deer Park routinely, with the exception where I am trying to determine if I am really seeing a test browser problem or where a problem within Deer Park is too onerous.
Reread your previous messages to see such attacks.
By necessity I will keep this simple, your point: " Holy shit. You're so smart your computer runs alpha versions more stable than mere mortals...". Once again you completely missed the point. It's not that I am so great (I did not write the application) it's a comparison to the software you depend upon that in full release does not match the quality of an alpha created by other groups.
Next you seem quite pleased to state: "[rebuts point that was never made, re DBA]", and what do you think the major functionality of the "SQL Server Enterprise Manager" is? One might conclude that you are unaware of the implicit content of your arguments and more so in the points I was trying to make initially.
One more: "Apologies for the British spelling...", why, it was not an attack only part of an observation on a technical U.S. Constitutional issue. You are much too defensive, it was mostly intended to be humorous, since I ceased to argue. Rereading it, however, it can be interpreted as being nasty - for that alone I apologize.
Finally: I associate the word dork with an common aspersion cast at high school intellectual types. The people I had in mind held management positions in technical fields (mostly) that were my model for these dangerous types. We are not talking rank stupidity per se (note George W. Bush is NOT stupid! - my contention, his performance is), but people so full of their infallibility they cannot conceive of the possibility of their being in error.
RE: "Moreover, I have encountered a number of very dense people that could not even conceive of how uninformed they truly were."
Sorry, guess I just encountered one more. No need to waste my breath here.
Think of running for President? I know you probably cannot qualify immediately seeing the British spelling, but if the constitution is altered for the Terminator you should try out. You probably cannot even top the current one for stupidity, but I have been proven wrong so many times...
Well if I were that pretentious I would have added a bonus point. Moreover, I could mention experience that probably surpasses yours but I would never describe myself as a backend database administrator (DBA). Moreover, I have encountered a number of very dense people that could not even conceive of how uninformed they truly were. When I wrote the note I was thinking of that sort of person, because machines with easy GUI's seem to attract those types. I have several friends that are active users of SQL Server, that I consider to be more skilled both as programmers and in their understanding of database theory. I perhaps should note, however, I was never trained to be the application database programmer I describe myself currently. If, however, you wish to match my academic training and experience (I only have two degrees) we will see which of us is over impressed with themselves.
Regarding MS marketing, do not take the Enterprise adjective too seriously. Furthermore, the graphical browser it's an alpha version that on my machine is more stable than the current stable release. Hint and it's not IE.
RE: "... has stupidly easy to use management tools."
You have hit upon a great truth. It can invite individuals too unskilled to operating a serious RDBMS. Moreover, this same group might not recognize their lack of skills, because any "fool" can do it.
I too have an overall unfavorable impression of MS's SQL Server. Compared to Sybase, they [MS] have added a lot of features to the "shared" Transact-SQL language, which is used in both to write stored procedures and creation of tables, indexes, triggers and constraints (for example). Some added real advantages, while their attempts to stress their independence from which their RDBMS sprung has led them to ruin some of the best feature in Sybase. That is, the temporary tables. Other "features" just leave me a bit dizzy.
Originally, my desire was to use Oracle, because it was and seems still to be the most popular (and had the reputation of being the most powerful), however, when offered the opportunity to work on Sybase I accepted. Later when I began to study on my own the Oracle PL/SQL syntax, I was struck on how much cleaner, more elegant Transact-SQL was. Moreover, this was despite my liking the Oracle syntax structure that was nearer to other past programming experience. Now having dabbled in Perl, Python and PHP my previous syntactical preferences play no role. Given the opportunity I would work with any of the three, but I still think I would prefer Sybase.
RE: "... much easier to work with than oracle (where you often get the impression that they intentionally obfuscate things to justify the cost)"
Not necessarily, compared to Sybase Oracle is carrying a lot of excess baggage from older versions. Moreover, until quite recently it has lacked some of the best features in Sybase. However, not ever having used Oracle take on temporary tables it too might like (SQL Server) MS use of the Sybase base language and model where they threw away the advantages by being just a bit too cute. My impression was that Oracle honed the cursor functionality (and perhaps its performance characteristics that are horrible on Sybase).
My major impression comparing Oracle's PL/SQL to Sybase's Transact-SQL was how relatively straight forward and elegant the latter was.
Slashdot Mirror
MS might have an interest in this suit not being thrown out. It could "in good faith" pretend to negotiate a settlement until Vista is nearly really ready to be released.
If Symatec should resist, MS can cite their efforts and the Supreme court decision to have the suit blocked. For MS this could be a real win, because no longer would the delay be attributed to their lack of execution. Moreover, a premature release to avoid the former critique could open them to further attacks should the software have easily discovered flaws.
Perhaps some will continue to complain, but the focus will no longer be solely upon the deficiencies of MS real or imagined.
I own a IBM T-30 that under really light use developed two cracks in the case. The crappy Gateway I leased and hauled around everywhere for over two years only developed one case crack. Moreover, the latter had hard use.
The only positive comment is that the IBM unit is still technically useful running Linux, whereas the Gateway with the then new Windows 95 ceased to have any utility to me a full six months prior to the lease expiration - and I was doing Windows type custom coding for clients at that time.
as describing their actions; sure then I agree that it would be certainly reasonable to quit the finger pointing at the inferior IE.
Until that happens, and the fanbois rage for the true one and only Microsoft, why not cite some numbers. Like much of the statistical data showing Firefox losing several tenths of points in popularity, what's the harm. Just as meaningless or probably less, because it simply a total count. Moreover, they try to not recount upgrades.
Somehow I find it hard to believe this person's concern is sincere. So go to MS and convince them to stop the crap marketing and mafia like "marketing" tactics. Then I am sure Firefox will cease citing meaningless numbers. Quid pro Quo
I would not surf without either Adblock or Flashblock. Despite this dynamic duo powers, there are still Asian sites that I will not tolerate, with their excesses of flashy clutter.
I do not block everything, just the most intrusive. Hence, I selectively chose the ones to suppress with Adblock, whereas Flashblock may be blanket coverage it stops the cpu from approaching maximum levels of usage.
Oddly of all the winners, I have not even experimented with even one those listed.
Nonetheless, to take so called tech babble about the imminent attack of a worm expected to fire on the 3rd of every month to imply that a trading system was or even could be imperiled by a similar stupid attack mechanism has to assume the lowest level of competence was in charge. I tend to assume those in charge of critical systems are by nature both more knowledgeable and cautious.
While I was obviously wrong on all counts, I think an article discussing a failure of a trading system should be much more explicit. Unix and Unix like operating systems are not immune to break ins, thus, it's nice to know this was not one of those cases.
* - the link shown in the cited comment (http://www.rts.ru/common/rts_getfile.cfm?id=2361) was not working today.
Just read elsewhere that in Eastern Europe (and I guess Russia) FOSS lags due to inertia and distrust of authority (and implicitly lack of knowledge). Look up Ester Dyson - says MS puts effort in training programs there, hence, their success.
The reason not to have Windows in charge would security related. However, even there one could argue that if set up properly that concern would be obviated. Nonetheless, the tardy response that characterizes Microsoft too aptly (other than in rhetoric) and cost would be the reasons not to use their option.
Windows has improved, so much so that the first time I used Windows NT 4 on assignment I did not reboot the machine, because there were no machine lockups. I last saw a blue screen of death on a network back when Windows was at best an environment: Win 3.x. It was only later when my results sets returned radically altered, without seeing any reason in my query code changes, taught me that Windows had developed a more subtle failure mode. Thereafter, reboots every week whether needed or not.
One last point: no where in the article could I find what OS was actually being used. Are you presuming it was Windows or did you see some text I missed?
Other OSs are not immune to security breaches. Moreover, I am surprised any securities trading firm would use anything other than a Unix like OS. Hence, if Windows were really used it would be a significant portion of the story that was neglected, i.e.: "how did it get there?".
Does anyone know with certainty that Windows (whatever name) was the OS used in this instance?
I read this elsewhere, hence, it's not my original thought: why were the antivirus, etc. manufactures so silent?
If they ignore such an egregious attack on the majority of systems in use, why should they expect credence with their PR campaign about the next dire threats facing computing?
I share your wonder about others reading carefully, however, not just limited to the license. I am noticing many stories (not just on /.) where the summaries are inconsistent with the cited article content and/or linked information that is contradictory to the poster's thrust.
[I was tempted too to wonder about why were Oracle's terms deemed superior to MS routine offers of 90 day test version of SQL Server. For me there are several turn offs to the latter option, but here many users might opt for its try out terms.]
On the Linux download side, the license was explicitly limited to a beta version with a cut off date along with the option of an announced revocation by either party. If that condition is just not legal boiler plate a free, limited version of the Oracle database has a short life expectancy.
Here is a link where it is suggested Oracle might use MySQL to squeeze MS's SQL Server from above and below: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/45935/index.h tml
Sorry if this is a duplicate, tried to check.
Either there was the threat to revoke the patents per se, or they were ignored in order to produce war planes for the conflict.
The purpose there was more directly to take lives, in the case in point: here it is to save lives, hence, in my mind this has at least an equivalent moral weight of the incident I cite.
Let me give you one reason Microsoft might see an advantage despite the many down sides you have listed, that is, one less site pushing Netscape/Firefox to its users.
You might not think that would suffice as a reason for MS to blow excess funds, but there are signs that something about Firefox has some factions within Microsoft very fearful. Perhaps that fear is justified.
> "I can't imagine why Miguel persists in his Quixotic quest."
Latin heritage?
While I agree in principle on too many people being overly receptive only to the messages they prefer to hear, that argument may not be totally applicable here.
.Net led anywhere. Earlier than Jan. 2, 2005.]
I failed in my search to find a blog entry where a former Microsoft insider (and still sympathetic to MS) had a bleaker assessment than what you would call reality.
[Search in [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/%5D for a writeup on why he did not think
As another comment that stated (which I was tempted to reply to) posed the damaging effect of MS dropping all those developers. it has happened before and will again whenever MS thinks its best interests are threatened. All those that follow the present trends blindly with no independent analysis are open to suffer the consequences.
Even with preparation (due diligence) the future is hard to predict.
First let me explain the delay. I was composing a reply, that may have been harsher than this response when my keyboard lost its ability to render a significant set of characters needed to respond. I had spilled coffee earlier, after a trip where I purchased a new keyboard and other items, again my response was halted when a momentary power drop dimmed the lights and rebooted all our computers. Afterwards, I just had other activities. So that's the reason for my retarded answering.
..." You mentioned this and here I was referring to the break through(s) necessary to accomplish (or even to contemplate the possibility) the tasks you predicate. Setting a goal is applied science or engineering where most if not all the basics are pretty well solved. Here we have no real knowledge that the required efficiencies will ever be practical. [I saw your suggestion regarding the solar sails - it would take much, much more than that. Have you ever sailed, going against the wind? It is much harder (tacking).] Basic science research is not goal orientated, however, many times it can bring forth insights to seemingly unrelated problems. Break through insights are disruptive, at very least to those in that scientific field. The society we currently reside, has been suppressing findings that do not conform to their predilictions. Many of these are applied in nature. Moreover, this same elite has no use for other current, best scientific results. Tell me again how these people are going to finance really basic research that could undermine their most basic views on life and their role.
I noticed several points you seemed to have missed in their inherent significance. Moreover, I sense too you have very little rigorous scientific training. You might be an engineer, but your real knowledge of how science works seems lacking. This is not an attack, it is an observation [also, very few will even see this note so no need to take offense - none intended]. First, let's take a portion of the quoting of my post.
"... where do you expect the financing of the basic science
Human history is stewn with instances where society not only stagnated, but regressed from their former states. I am not talking about the problems the Greeks had when they looked back at their 'Golden Age', and ignored the one they were passing through. I have more in mind the theocracy that held sway in Europe to the point where they destroyed the vestige of the Roman Empire that persisted beyond the time theirs fell. Moreover, these same types pushed the level of knowledge further into regression.
So while you may not think that closed minds that ignore the best scientific knowledge, particularly when some have professed the goal to persist in space exploration, I think you are in error. Moreover, you should look at some of those speaking in your name that are pushing to the extreme views in concert with big business interests that would rather avoid "unnecessary regulatory" expenses.
You have no idea how difficult it can be to accomplish seemingly trivial tasks. Unless, you have done research, it is shocking to find how little reliable data points you can base you work upon. Moreover, earlier publications of results can simply be wrong or misguided.
Now combine the above with some radically different finding, it may be resisted fanatically by the "scientific community" (or specialty). Think about how some breakthrough is finally accepted by the evolved scientific community - that significant breakthrough could easily be suppressed by a political elite or the general population that's upset with its implications. Such a response is more likely where religious views hold a very significant role. [To name a few: non-centric univerise with the Earth as the center, biological evolution, geological age of the earth, and cosmology (blows biblical age of the earth even with "Inteligent Design").]
Regarding the last major point (theocratic control), let's consider a counter example: Islamic sci
RE: "that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now ..."
..."
..." Sorry, not when so little real thought or knowledge lies behind the blabber. Look at one of the responses just below your message. That person at least knows what s/he is talking about.
When a significant majority in one of the advanced space faring states believes the earth is no older than 7,000 years. where do you expect the financing of the basic science necessary to even contemplate the tasks you outline? Scientific reasoning and knowledge is being devalued continuously for more faith based "logic". Moreover, for the immediate future those following the latter, easier path will live the more comfortable life.
So give me one observable trend that might support your overly optimistic view? The Chinese and their will to awe the world with feats in space and the military? Unlikely, in an oppressive society where the elite holds power tenuously most of their efforts are very short term (more like five year plans). Their accomplishments may be more mass killings or their fading away, at best.
RE: "all about return vs. investment
Would it not be wiser (and in some areas the trend) to do more with less? The throw away societies we have will burn out their energy supplies long before they are able to go elsewhere and do it again only bigger (and better?).
RE: "Its especially premature to knock the idea
The first problem is that the wrong file is downloaded: firefox-1.5b1.tar.gz
./configure step. Anyone have any ideas how I can get the beta running?
whereas the pattern I expected for the alpha was: firefox-1.5b1.installer.tar.gz
When the file I downloaded was extracted it seemed to create a new firefox directory above the Desktop and the startup script calls the location where the alpha resides. Hence trying to run it brings up my Alpha 2 version. I attempted a source type installation where it failed immediately at the
I already have a firefox-installer directory from my Alpha 2 installation, however, I cannot believe Mozilla can assume every tester will have had a previous test version installed.
So far in most respects I find Deer Park even at the Alpha 2 stage better than 1.0.6, however, it is not without flaws. I woold like to see if some of the problems I encountered have been fixed.
I am using Deer Park routinely, with the exception where I am trying to determine if I am really seeing a test browser problem or where a problem within Deer Park is too onerous.
TIA
RE: "Yay. Ad hominem"
...". Once again you completely missed the point. It's not that I am so great (I did not write the application) it's a comparison to the software you depend upon that in full release does not match the quality of an alpha created by other groups.
...", why, it was not an attack only part of an observation on a technical U.S. Constitutional issue. You are much too defensive, it was mostly intended to be humorous, since I ceased to argue. Rereading it, however, it can be interpreted as being nasty - for that alone I apologize.
Reread your previous messages to see such attacks.
By necessity I will keep this simple, your point: " Holy shit. You're so smart your computer runs alpha versions more stable than mere mortals
Next you seem quite pleased to state: "[rebuts point that was never made, re DBA]", and what do you think the major functionality of the "SQL Server Enterprise Manager" is? One might conclude that you are unaware of the implicit content of your arguments and more so in the points I was trying to make initially.
One more: "Apologies for the British spelling
Finally: I associate the word dork with an common aspersion cast at high school intellectual types. The people I had in mind held management positions in technical fields (mostly) that were my model for these dangerous types. We are not talking rank stupidity per se (note George W. Bush is NOT stupid! - my contention, his performance is), but people so full of their infallibility they cannot conceive of the possibility of their being in error.
RE: "Moreover, I have encountered a number of very dense people that could not even conceive of how uninformed they truly were."
...
Sorry, guess I just encountered one more. No need to waste my breath here.
Think of running for President? I know you probably cannot qualify immediately seeing the British spelling, but if the constitution is altered for the Terminator you should try out. You probably cannot even top the current one for stupidity, but I have been proven wrong so many times
RE: " Get over yourself."
Well if I were that pretentious I would have added a bonus point. Moreover, I could mention experience that probably surpasses yours but I would never describe myself as a backend database administrator (DBA). Moreover, I have encountered a number of very dense people that could not even conceive of how uninformed they truly were. When I wrote the note I was thinking of that sort of person, because machines with easy GUI's seem to attract those types. I have several friends that are active users of SQL Server, that I consider to be more skilled both as programmers and in their understanding of database theory. I perhaps should note, however, I was never trained to be the application database programmer I describe myself currently. If, however, you wish to match my academic training and experience (I only have two degrees) we will see which of us is over impressed with themselves.
Regarding MS marketing, do not take the Enterprise adjective too seriously. Furthermore, the graphical browser it's an alpha version that on my machine is more stable than the current stable release. Hint and it's not IE.
RE: "... has stupidly easy to use management tools."
You have hit upon a great truth. It can invite individuals too unskilled to operating a serious RDBMS. Moreover, this same group might not recognize their lack of skills, because any "fool" can do it.
I too have an overall unfavorable impression of MS's SQL Server. Compared to Sybase, they [MS] have added a lot of features to the "shared" Transact-SQL language, which is used in both to write stored procedures and creation of tables, indexes, triggers and constraints (for example). Some added real advantages, while their attempts to stress their independence from which their RDBMS sprung has led them to ruin some of the best feature in Sybase. That is, the temporary tables. Other "features" just leave me a bit dizzy.
Originally, my desire was to use Oracle, because it was and seems still to be the most popular (and had the reputation of being the most powerful), however, when offered the opportunity to work on Sybase I accepted. Later when I began to study on my own the Oracle PL/SQL syntax, I was struck on how much cleaner, more elegant Transact-SQL was. Moreover, this was despite my liking the Oracle syntax structure that was nearer to other past programming experience. Now having dabbled in Perl, Python and PHP my previous syntactical preferences play no role. Given the opportunity I would work with any of the three, but I still think I would prefer Sybase.
RE: "... much easier to work with than oracle (where you often get the impression that they intentionally obfuscate things to justify the cost)"
Not necessarily, compared to Sybase Oracle is carrying a lot of excess baggage from older versions. Moreover, until quite recently it has lacked some of the best features in Sybase. However, not ever having used Oracle take on temporary tables it too might like (SQL Server) MS use of the Sybase base language and model where they threw away the advantages by being just a bit too cute. My impression was that Oracle honed the cursor functionality (and perhaps its performance characteristics that are horrible on Sybase).
My major impression comparing Oracle's PL/SQL to Sybase's Transact-SQL was how relatively straight forward and elegant the latter was.