And I can't just let the thing run all day at work, since the batteries only last 90 min! Guess I'll be vacuuming the old way for some time to come still....
Let it loose in one room each day, then finish up the remaining rooms (if you have more than 5 rooms) on the weekend.
Before XHTML, the p tag had no closing tag. The end of a paragraph was defined by the beginning of the next one. So that wasn't necessarily a "bad habit" back then.
This is not correct. The P tag ALWAYS had a closing tag, but it was not REQUIRED. Here's the P tag section for HTML 2.0: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/L2index.html# P
was still allowed, but all it did was start a new paragraph.
Actually, it just ends the current paragraph. You can't use the closing tag without the beginning tag and still have well-formed HTML. Since it wasn't required, though, there are probably many different methods of handling it as far as HTML parsers/browsers are concerned. The only reason it would start a new paragraph is because it designates the end of the current paragraph, and another paragraph is what typically follows the end of a paragraph within a document.
Obviously some people are [xml.com]. Let's keep in mind that there are millions of XML parsers out there and they work together in large part because there is only one version of XML. Now there are two and it will take years to roll out the new parsers universally.
Besides the fact that eventually someone's going to pitch a bitch over the fact that XML is not Unicode 3.0-compliant if they don't adopt this change, XML itself would've been updated eventually with something that required new parsers to be written (or updates to existing parsers).
This one change is a very minor update for most parsers and could be done in a manner of minutes for some parsers. Full XML 1.1 compliance for existing 1.0 parsers could take anywhere from a few days from the final specification to a couple of months depending on the complexity and the developer. Any parser that isn't updated by the end of next year probably never will be updated, and shouldn't remain in use.
If multiple versions of XML-type language specifications were a problem, SGML and HTML would've died out a long time ago.
But, unfortunately, the very commonly used Windows codepage 1252 puts printable glyphs in that code point range. Rather, recent versions of CP 1252 (not all versions of CP1252 are the same) have put things like trademark signs [dkuug.dk] in that character codepoint range. Keep in mind that Microsoft still dominates the computer software industry more so than IBM and their attempts to keep things open and standards body approved.
Interestingly enough, the chart you linked only goes up to 007E and mostly conforms with Unicode 3.0 (even though it's Unicode 1.0). 007F is the first of the control codes, delete, in the section this applies to.
The problem is that the data with the NEL character already exists, and is already generating these types of errors when it's translated into XML (or when XML is generated on these mainframes). From the original change proposal by IBM:
Problem areas include:
* Processing XML documents or DTDs generated on OS/390 systems, with XML 1.0 compliant parsers.
* Processing XML documents or DTDs, using native OS/390 system tools.
* Processing XML documents or DTDs retrieved from OS/390 database or file systems, in non-OS/390 environments.
XML documents that contain [NEL] characters are declared invalid or not well-formed by XML 1.0 compliant parsers.
Essentially 'just fix the software' involves operating system-level changes as well as possibly changes to most software that interprets NEL characters on that OS. As it stands, they're going to have a problem anyway, and it's probably best to simply add the change to the XML standard to fix what was essentially an osmission in the 1.0 standard.
However, the newline/LF and CR in ASCII work fine, no matter what language, as far as I can see. So my question remains...why add to that? Does this new newline character server another function besides indicating a newline, so that it is semantically different from the old newline?
Actually, if you look up the specification for C1 control codes (where this particular NEL comes from), you'll see that it's quite archaic, and that the primary reason for this particular nextline control code is because it's mode-dependant and can behave differently based on the current mode of the device in use. In other words, it's a newline that might not be displayed on the screen depending on the mode of the display, sortof like deciding where a newline shows up if the user has selected the 'word wrap' option in their editor, though a little more complex.
That being said, it's all dependant on the device implementation, and the specification is so old that most devices probably either ignore it or treat it as a simple newline.
I see a point in having \x0a\x0d and \x0d\x0a, because they represent more accurately how a typewriter does it (and conform better to the original ASCII standard, I think). However, one of these is kind of redundant, and history seems to have decided that this is \x0a\x0d. But why, for goodness's sake, do we need all those others??? Why is it that people always do things their own way instead of following standards that work fine???
Because ASCII doesn't work for the character sets that over 50% of the world's (literate) population reads and writes. Hence the Unicode standard, which of course tries to make it's overlap with ASCII compatible when possible.
IBM has contributed so much, it's only natural that some changes might be characterized in the news as benefitting them more than other parties. Is anyone that worried about adding a new EOL character in 1.1 that XML 1.0 "chokes" on ?
and, as an IBM rep pointed out in the article, XML documents are supposed to specify what version they're using at the top of the document. Any proper XML parser should read that it's 1.0 and interpret the newline character as 1.0 would.
1) There's a limitation on the number of appeals any case can have, and the time in which they can be made. Eventually you would be permitted to say whatever you wished about it. There are some things about the case which the judge is permitted to discuss, and the opinion goes into detail on why the things he said don't fall in that area. You might find a better understanding by reading the opinion yourself, the dismissal of Judge Jackson is at the end so you can start from the bottom, basically, if you don't want to read about the parts of the case that were overturned which resulted in the scaling back of the Justice Department's case.
2) the Judge told reporters from the New York Times that he questioned Microsoft's integration of a web browser into Windows. Stating that he was "not a fan of integration," he drew an analogy to a 35-millimeter camera with an integrated light meter that in his view should also be offered separately: "You like the convenience of having a light meter built in, integrated, so all you have to do is press a button to get a reading. But do you think camera makers should also serve photographers who want to use a separate light meter, so they can hold it up, move it around?" Joel Brinkley & Steve Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 263 (2001). In other remarks, the Judge commented on the integration at the heart of the case: "[I]t was quite clear to me that the motive of Microsoft in bundling the Internet browser was not one of consumer convenience. The evidence that this was done for the consumer was not credible.... The evidence was so compelling that there was an ulterior motive." Wilke, Wall St. J. As for tying law in general, he criticized this court's ruling in the consent decree case, saying it "was wrongheaded on several counts" and would exempt the software industry from the antitrust laws. Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 78, 295; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times.
Reports of the interviews have the District Judge describing Microsoft's conduct, with particular emphasis on what he regarded as the company's prevarication, hubris, and impenitence. In some of his secret meetings with reporters, the Judge offered his contemporaneous impressions of testimony. He permitted at least one reporter to see an entry concerning Bill Gates in his "oversized green notebook." Ken Auletta, World War 3.0, at 112 (2001). He also provided numerous after-the-fact credibility assessments. He told reporters that Bill Gates' "testimony is inherently without credibility" and "[i]f you can't believe this guy, who else can you believe?" Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 278; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 40. As for the company's other witnesses, the Judge is reported as saying that there "were times when I became impatient with Microsoft witnesses who were giving speeches." "[T]hey were telling me things I just flatly could not credit." Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times. In an interview given the day he entered the break-up order, he summed things up: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus": "Untrue in one thing, untrue in everything." "I don't subscribe to that as absolutely true. But it does lead one to suspicion. It's a universal human experience. If someone lies to you once, how much else can you credit as the truth?" Wilke, Wall St. J.
According to reporter Auletta, the District Judge told him in private that, "I thought they [Microsoft and its executives] didn't think they were regarded as adult members of the community. I thought they would learn." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14. The Judge told a college audience that "Bill Gates is an ingenious engineer, but I don't think he is that adept at business ethics. He has not yet come to realise things he did (when Microsoft was smaller) he should not have done when he became a monopoly." Spiegel, Fin. Times. Characterizing Gates' and his company's "crime" as hubris, the Judge stated that "[i]f I were able to propose a remedy of my devising, I'd require Mr. Gates to write a book report" on Napoleon Bonaparte, "[b]ecause I think [Gates] has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." Auletta, The New Yorker, at 41; see also Auletta, World War 3.0, at 397. The Judge apparently became, in Auletta's words, "increasingly troubled by what he learned about Bill Gates and couldn't get out of his mind the group picture he had seen of Bill Gates and Paul Allen and their shaggy-haired first employees at Microsoft." The reporter wrote that the Judge said he saw in the picture "a smart-mouthed young kid who has extraordinary ability and needs a little discipline. I've often said to colleagues that Gates would be better off if he had finished Harvard." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 168-69; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 46 (reporting the District Judge's statement that "they [Microsoft and its executives] don't act like grown-ups!" "[T]o this day they continue to deny they did anything wrong.").
Nothing in there looks like opinion to you? It doesn't give the appearance of bias if a judge decides to ignore someone's testimony not because it was proven the person was lying, but because he couldn't 'credit what they were saying'? He thinks Gates has some kind of Napoleonic complex, but there's no record of a psychologist testifying to this, it's his opinion based on what he saw in the courtroom and elsewhere. To get to the point, again from the appeals court:
It is clear that the District Judge was not discussing purely procedural matters, which are a permissible subject of public comment under one of the Canon's three narrowly drawn exceptions. He disclosed his views on the factual and legal matters at the heart of the case. His opinions about the credibility of witnesses, the validity of legal theories, the culpability of the defendant, the choice of remedy, and so forth all dealt with the merits of the action. It is no excuse that the Judge may have intended to "educate" the public about the case or to rebut "public misperceptions" purportedly caused by the parties. See Grimaldi, Wash. Post; Microsoft Judge Says He May Step down from Case on Appeal, Wall St. J., Oct. 30, 2000. If those were his intentions, he could have addressed the factual and legal issues as he saw them--and thought the public should see them--in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment, or in a written opinion. Or he could have held his tongue until all appeals were concluded.
Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment.
There's even a nice little statement about him giving one reporter 10 hours of taped interview time. This brought into question how much time was spent with the reporter off tape, and how much information the judge received from the reporter:
What did the reporters convey to the District Judge during their secret sessions? By one account, the Judge spent a total of ten hours giving taped interviews to one reporter. Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14 n.*. We do not know whether he spent even more time in untaped conversations with the same reporter, nor do we know how much time he spent with others. But we think it safe to assume that these interviews were not monologues. Interviews often become conversations. When reporters pose questions or make assertions, they may be furnishing information, information that may reflect their personal views of the case. The published accounts indicate this happened on at least one occasion. Ken Auletta reported, for example, that he told the Judge "that Microsoft employees professed shock that he thought they had violated the law and behaved unethically," at which time the Judge became "agitated" by "Microsoft's 'obstinacy'." Id. at 369. It is clear that Auletta had views of the case. As he wrote in a Washington Post editorial, "[a]nyone who sat in [the District Judge's] courtroom during the trial had seen ample evidence of Microsoft's sometimes thuggish tactics." Ken Auletta, Maligning the Microsoft Judge, Wash. Post, Mar. 7, 2001, at A23.
Conveniently ignoring that those comments were not meant to be public. If there was a violation of ethics is was in the reporters publishing quotes they had been expressly told by the speaker were not meant for publishing. Reporters are supposed to get permission to publish quotes.
Jackson told them to publish the quotes after he issued his judgment, which they did. The publishing wasn't even in question, it was the fact that he gave the interviews in the first place. Of course, in most cases there is an appeals process, and Jackson had past experience with Microsoft that would tell him they would appeal his decision, which, as the appeals court stated, meant the case would still be pending even after his final judgment was issued.
His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates
It's sad to see comments like this coming from Judges that were claiming Jackson was the biased one. It's not Jackson's fault that stating bare facts amounts to ridcule when talking about Microsoft.
It's sad to see that some people can't distinguish between facts and opinion. Jackson's statements as quoted in the appeals court's opinion were clearly his opinions and presented as such. If he had simply stated facts, they might have left him on the case.
Basically, since MS doesn't want alternate implementations of some of their technology, much of it is unpublished. That is the reason it is not "in normal Win32 documentation". Again, that's the difference between it being published and unpublished API's. This has nothing to do with the decree.
Since you seem to be a pedant, allow to me spell this out. Unpublished and/or undocumented in this case means, "not generally available for public consumption".
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The Win32 API documentation doesn't normally include items such as those grouped under protocols. That doesn't mean that every protocol used by Win32 is undocumented, simply that this is not the place where they are normally documented. In many cases there would be a document specific to the protocol, and then there are a few circumstances where Windows actually uses standard protocols without extensions (though looking at the list those are obviously rare).
And as far as file formats are concerned, I got two words for you: plain text. Send all and receive all information in plain text, and you're compatible 'til the end of time.
The Navy's been standardized on Word docs as the standard format for those types of files for a long time, they just can't always send them to everyone if they're still using typewriters and WordStar.
The point is that nobody mentioned ANYONE complaining about using these systems. We just assume they must be burdensome, but haven't so much as asked anyone. If Word 2002 doesn't have a good WordStar filter, won't this CREATE headaches when accessing old data?
I'm pretty sure Word has a good WordStar filter, but does WordStar have a good Word2002 filter? I doubt it. They Navy made their specs on their own, and all I've got to say to the people in the Navy is "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell".
That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's
Not quite. The settlement specifically talks about APIs seperately from communications protocols, and Microsoft did release a number of previously unpublished APIs (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp) Most of them are UI, security, error handling, file management, networking, and so on. The distinction between APIs and protocols is also used here: http://microsoft.com/legal/settlementprogra m/ which links to the above page in the APIs section, but requires you to go through the NDA process for the protocols section.
Of course, if any of the protocol documentation is incomplete as to how to use a particular layer of the protocol, I guess you could call that an unpublished API, but it doesn't really fall under that term as it was used in the settlement (though they'd still have to disclose it; the question is, how would we know if the NDA keeps you from saying whether or not they're complete?).
My trial price was a 2500Euro iBook, 11 month ago. I never regretted it.
My aunt wanted to buy a laptop around the same timeframe and Apple was the first place I looked. Unfortunately, $2500 (and I'm sure what I looked at was cheaper than that) was way out of her price range. The recent reduction in price of Office v.X helps significantly in this (she was buying the laptop mostly for writing her next book and uses Word to write; don't ask me to get her to use another program, I learned a long time ago that it's too much hassle unless people decide for themselves), but at the time I helped her find a laptop that was more than adequate for her needs at less than half the price, and the laptop was still a more powerful computer than her desktop.
I build PC's too myself, it's easier and cheaper and you get what you want. But it's the "geek" way, not the "normal user way".
Depending on the person, I tend to help people build their systems or build them for them. I know that I'm going to support the computer anyway, regardless of whether it's white box or Dell, so I just prefer that it's built from components I know will work right. Putting someone's computer together for them takes less time than the number of calls I get asking for help if I tell them to go buy a computer at CompUSA or wherever. The best part is that about half of the people I've helped this way actually became comfortable with building the system themselves and doing upgrades themselves, which reduced the number of support calls from them significantly (not to mention they also end up tinkering with their software more and though that causes an initial increase in calls, over the long term it reduces them significantly). Other than that, most of my experience with the major OEMs comes from either work or the computers these people bought before they knew me. The Dells we have at work seem to be very good in terms of stability.
I'm in no way a Mac zealot, but I want to give them the credit for the nice systems they make for a really decent price. Many people avoid Macs because they are told they are expensive or incompatible (I was one of them), if put *in the right light* it just all gets relative. Neither of both statements is really true.
Everything's relative any more. Any computer can be made compatible (and most ship in a very compatible state), and expense just depends on what they're looking at. Again, my biggest problem with Apple is simply the (lack of) options in the low to mid-range computers. I don't know anyone that's bought a new monitor every time they bought a new computer (and I know a lot of people that just buy new computers every 4 or so years rather than upgrading the systems every year or two), but that's pretty much what you end up doing in the iMac line.
By the way, while that Packard Bell is "old", I don't consider it a relic. It's a very nice 300Mhz P-II now with 384Meg RAM. I say enough for anything *that* family is going to throw at.
I forgot that the Packard Bell name is still used outside the US. As far as I know Packard Bell never sold a P2 based system in the US, so you might understand my use of the term relic there;)
I don't know any user that calls tech-support, and I've talked a lot with them. Those who did, told me they weren't helped well at all. Now they call me, and get better service. Note, I live in Europe... in the US, the situation might be a bit different.
Neither do I, except in relation to work computers. Sometimes I wish they would, but usually I know they're getting taken care of if they call me rather than getting shoved around by tech support.
Obviously it's been too long since I spent time reading about network protocols instead of operating system and application APIs. I just looked back at some old documents and they do use API interchangeably with any given layer of a protocol. It would seem to me that this is applying the same term to two things that are only vaguely similar, but what difference does it make? Unfortunately, this means I was wrong, though the settlement and the website Microsoft uses to distribute this information make the distinction along the same lines as I have.
All of that being said, the APIs to which you are referring would normally be within the protocol description, and in normal Win32 documentation wouldn't be listed in the list of APIs.
I'm sick and tired of getting flamed for trying to be reasonable. My point is: the Mac is not expensive if you compare it to their direct competitors. If you don't mind the finishing of your x86 machine you can save a lot of bucks (You know "finishing" is why a Audi is more expensive than a VW)
I wasn't trying to flame, I was just well aware that the Dell you specified wasn't anywhere near the cheapest thing they offered. They'd go out of business selling Celerons at that price. The machine I chose was the first machine I saw when I cliecked on the 'Home & Home Office' link (the only desktop machine immediately seen on that page). Personally, I build my computers myself, it saves a lot of money at the cost of a little time, and I can be sure that the components that go into my machine will be good ones. Most of the machines I build have a lot more 'finishing' to them than a Dell, though how good they look depends mostly on how much I want to spend on a case rather than whatever Dell decides to do with their case design this week.
Mind you the system you specced is not expensive, but I just went to Dell, took the cheapest machine and specced it up to the Mac specs. That's all I did. You went two or three models up, I just assumed taking the cheapest Dell and speccing it up would be the cheapest option. I was wrong... For the rest I am well aware that a G4 is less powerfull than any AMD/Intel around now.
I just took the first one I saw. I don't know why Dell is selling Celeron systems for that much. I suspect that part of the problem is that the 1.7GHz is near the top of the speed for Celeron chips, while the 2.0GHz is almost the slowest P4 you can buy now. There wasn't even much speccing up to do on the P4 system, and frankly I would've preferred options to get rid of some things if it were my own system (for instance, I've never owned a 56K modem).
Everyone around here is pointing out that Mom&Pop shops or self-built machines will cost less. Yup, I knew that all along. Everybody here seems to say: people buy there and not in big OEM's. Wait a second! Is that true? Well, I support several families when they have trouble with computers. Let's enumerate: two Fujitsu-Siemens, one Compaq, one Packard-Bell, and exactly one "noname-white-thingy" (which is more flaky than all the other ones). All the owners of these machines are normal users, nothing fancy. Beige boxes? I've only seen them at Geek's places. Of, and Mac users never call me for support: how does *that* come???
IDC published a report back in August that showed white box PC manufacturers have 40% of the market. As for the Mac users, I'd guess they're calling Apple for support, as a recent Consumer reports survey showed that Macs require more support calls than Dell on average (though Macs still faired better than the other brands you named), though Mac users are more satisfied with the support they receive than any other PC OEM's customers. That Packard-Bell must be a relic by now, too.
And now I stop this whole fucking flamewar (it was not intended as one, in the first place), and let you live further in your misconception that Macs are expensive for what they are.
My 'misconception' that Macs are expensive comes from the simple fact that when I spec out a machine for my uses from Apple it comes out to around $4K without monitor. In order to get the same price range on a Dell I have to go pretty far overboard (2GB of RAM for starters, I could cut the price to less than $3K by going with *just* 1GB of RAM, despite the fact that most of my current systems have more than enough RAM at 512MB), not to mention, again, that I build my computers myself and already own most of the software that would go on any new Intel machine I would build.
All of that being said, a low to mid-range Mac is very competetive in terms of price. Still, it bothers me that their lowest-priced tower system is $1600. I'll never buy an iMac-like computer because I know damned well that the monitor is one of the most expensive parts I use with any computer, and outlasts everything but the floppy drive (oh, sorry, no floppy in a Mac). I'd love to give the Mac a run to see if it's something I could use, but $1600 is a steep trial price, and that's not even the system I'd buy if I decided I really wanted to use one.
That's EXACTLY what people refer to when they call it an "illegal monopoly". It means that they are a monopoly that is breaking the law. Thus, the phrase, "illegal monopoly".
Then they need to go back to English class, because that phrase implies that the monopoly itself is illegal, not that what they're doing is illegal. You can illegally abuse your monopoly, but you do not have an illegal monopoly. The use of the phrase 'illegal monopoly' is the primary reason that most people don't understand antitrust law in the first place. They think that a monopoly can be illegal and don't understand why Microsoft (and others) isn't getting beat over the head just for being a monopoly.
You are correct! It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is, however, illegal to have an illegal monopoly, which is exactly what MS has been declared.
That's incorrect, because there is no illegal monopoly. It's illegal to leverage an existing monopoly in order to restrain trade or gain another monopoly. How you use a monopoly can be illegal, but the monopoly itself can not.
I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).
It really depends on what you are doing, though. From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level. Of course, if they needed an API rather than a protocol, they wouldn't be harping over this NDA, either.
You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.
Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.
but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side, as it's the way Windows handles the interaction between CIFS and the file system, authentication, and print services, for example. Since Samba doesn't run on Windows, the information required to do that would not be in a Windows API, because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux. Now, if the protocol was sending data in a way that was not described in the protocol itself, you'd have a point.
So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.
We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
I agree that both are very important, but there are cases in which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol, and vice versa. My point was primarily to make a distinction between APIs and protocols and to point out that if Samba was looking for an API, the API wouldn't be covered under this NDA. Since CIFS is on the list of protocols covered under the NDA and CIFS is one of the protocols used by Samba, it does make sense that they are looking for this particular information. Whether or not they need details on the API that Windows uses with CIFS would really depend on the level of detail in the CIFS specification in the first place. You certainly don't need the Windows networking API to communicate with Windows systems over IPv4, but it makes life easier if you're trying to communicate over IPv4 from a Windows system.
and now, the lowest base price for a PowerMac G4 on Apple's site:
Power Mac G4 Dual 867MHz w/133MHz system bus 256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM 60GB Ultra ATA drive Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW) Optical 2 - None NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual-display w/32MB DDR 56K internal modem Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English Mac OS - U.S. Englis
$1,699.00
Guess I need to drop some RAM and up the hard drive, drop the CD-RW to 16x and the DVD-ROM to 10x, and drop the monitor.
Dimension 4550: P4 2.0GHz 1GB 266MHz DDR RAM 40GB ATA-100 7200rpm HD M782 17" (I'd never use the monitor in your list so I upgraded) 16x DVD-ROM 48x/24x/48x Max CD-RW Drive Harman Kardon® HK-206 Speakers Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet 56K PCI Telephony Modem Premium Dell Movie Studio Bundle Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition Microsoft® Works Suite 2002 w/Money Standard
$1,409.00
and that's just a system from the same damned vendor that is significantly better in many ways than what you specced out. Never mind that I would never buy an OEM computer because they rip people off and that the majority of PCs sold are white box x86 systems from small OEMs you've probably never heard of and/or mom&pop stores.
Asking why we don't use RISC processors in x86-based PCs would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it?
Actually, most current x86 processors have a RISC core with a CISC front-end. So, we basically ARE using RISC processors for x86-based PCs. The item people seem to be looking for is dropping the x86 support rather than switching from CISC to RISC.
And I thought that AMDs "it's the equivalent of, so why don't we just call it that anyway" policy was a new thing
They (and Cyrix) also used a P-rating back when they were shipping chips for Pentium motherboards (Cyrix 6x86 for instance) to give you some idea of what speed of Pentium they compared to.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can't just let the thing run all day at work, since the batteries only last 90 min! Guess I'll be vacuuming the old way for some time to come still....
Let it loose in one room each day, then finish up the remaining rooms (if you have more than 5 rooms) on the weekend.
Before XHTML, the p tag had no closing tag. The end of a paragraph was defined by the beginning of the next one. So that wasn't necessarily a "bad habit" back then.
# P
This is not correct. The P tag ALWAYS had a closing tag, but it was not REQUIRED. Here's the P tag section for HTML 2.0:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/L2index.html
was still allowed, but all it did was start a new paragraph.
Actually, it just ends the current paragraph. You can't use the closing tag without the beginning tag and still have well-formed HTML. Since it wasn't required, though, there are probably many different methods of handling it as far as HTML parsers/browsers are concerned. The only reason it would start a new paragraph is because it designates the end of the current paragraph, and another paragraph is what typically follows the end of a paragraph within a document.
Obviously some people are [xml.com]. Let's keep in mind that there are millions of XML parsers out there and they work together in large part because there is only one version of XML. Now there are two and it will take years to roll out the new parsers universally.
Besides the fact that eventually someone's going to pitch a bitch over the fact that XML is not Unicode 3.0-compliant if they don't adopt this change, XML itself would've been updated eventually with something that required new parsers to be written (or updates to existing parsers).
This one change is a very minor update for most parsers and could be done in a manner of minutes for some parsers. Full XML 1.1 compliance for existing 1.0 parsers could take anywhere from a few days from the final specification to a couple of months depending on the complexity and the developer. Any parser that isn't updated by the end of next year probably never will be updated, and shouldn't remain in use.
If multiple versions of XML-type language specifications were a problem, SGML and HTML would've died out a long time ago.
But, unfortunately, the very commonly used Windows codepage 1252 puts printable glyphs in that code point range. Rather, recent versions of CP 1252 (not all versions of CP1252 are the same) have put things like trademark signs [dkuug.dk] in that character codepoint range. Keep in mind that Microsoft still dominates the computer software industry more so than IBM and their attempts to keep things open and standards body approved.
Interestingly enough, the chart you linked only goes up to 007E and mostly conforms with Unicode 3.0 (even though it's Unicode 1.0). 007F is the first of the control codes, delete, in the section this applies to.
The problem is that the data with the NEL character already exists, and is already generating these types of errors when it's translated into XML (or when XML is generated on these mainframes). From the original change proposal by IBM:
Problem areas include:
* Processing XML documents or DTDs generated on OS/390 systems, with XML 1.0 compliant parsers.
* Processing XML documents or DTDs, using native OS/390 system tools.
* Processing XML documents or DTDs retrieved from OS/390 database or file systems, in non-OS/390 environments.
XML documents that contain [NEL] characters are declared invalid or not well-formed by XML 1.0 compliant parsers.
Essentially 'just fix the software' involves operating system-level changes as well as possibly changes to most software that interprets NEL characters on that OS. As it stands, they're going to have a problem anyway, and it's probably best to simply add the change to the XML standard to fix what was essentially an osmission in the 1.0 standard.
However, the newline/LF and CR in ASCII work fine, no matter what language, as far as I can see. So my question remains...why add to that? Does this new newline character server another function besides indicating a newline, so that it is semantically different from the old newline?
Actually, if you look up the specification for C1 control codes (where this particular NEL comes from), you'll see that it's quite archaic, and that the primary reason for this particular nextline control code is because it's mode-dependant and can behave differently based on the current mode of the device in use. In other words, it's a newline that might not be displayed on the screen depending on the mode of the display, sortof like deciding where a newline shows up if the user has selected the 'word wrap' option in their editor, though a little more complex.
That being said, it's all dependant on the device implementation, and the specification is so old that most devices probably either ignore it or treat it as a simple newline.
I see a point in having \x0a\x0d and \x0d\x0a, because they represent more accurately how a typewriter does it (and conform better to the original ASCII standard, I think). However, one of these is kind of redundant, and history seems to have decided that this is \x0a\x0d. But why, for goodness's sake, do we need all those others??? Why is it that people always do things their own way instead of following standards that work fine???
Because ASCII doesn't work for the character sets that over 50% of the world's (literate) population reads and writes. Hence the Unicode standard, which of course tries to make it's overlap with ASCII compatible when possible.
IBM has contributed so much, it's only natural that some changes might be characterized in the news as benefitting them more than other parties. Is anyone that worried about adding a new EOL character in 1.1 that XML 1.0 "chokes" on ?
and, as an IBM rep pointed out in the article, XML documents are supposed to specify what version they're using at the top of the document. Any proper XML parser should read that it's 1.0 and interpret the newline character as 1.0 would.
1) There's a limitation on the number of appeals any case can have, and the time in which they can be made. Eventually you would be permitted to say whatever you wished about it. There are some things about the case which the judge is permitted to discuss, and the opinion goes into detail on why the things he said don't fall in that area. You might find a better understanding by reading the opinion yourself, the dismissal of Judge Jackson is at the end so you can start from the bottom, basically, if you don't want to read about the parts of the case that were overturned which resulted in the scaling back of the Justice Department's case.
2)
the Judge told reporters from the New York Times that he questioned Microsoft's integration of a web browser into Windows. Stating that he was "not a fan of integration," he drew an analogy to a 35-millimeter camera with an integrated light meter that in his view should also be offered separately: "You like the convenience of having a light meter built in, integrated, so all you have to do is press a button to get a reading. But do you think camera makers should also serve photographers who want to use a separate light meter, so they can hold it up, move it around?" Joel Brinkley & Steve Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 263 (2001). In other remarks, the Judge commented on the integration at the heart of the case: "[I]t was quite clear to me that the motive of Microsoft in bundling the Internet browser was not one of consumer convenience. The evidence that this was done for the consumer was not credible.... The evidence was so compelling that there was an ulterior motive." Wilke, Wall St. J. As for tying law in general, he criticized this court's ruling in the consent decree case, saying it "was wrongheaded on several counts" and would exempt the software industry from the antitrust laws. Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 78, 295; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times.
Reports of the interviews have the District Judge describing Microsoft's conduct, with particular emphasis on what he regarded as the company's prevarication, hubris, and impenitence. In some of his secret meetings with reporters, the Judge offered his contemporaneous impressions of testimony. He permitted at least one reporter to see an entry concerning Bill Gates in his "oversized green notebook." Ken Auletta, World War 3.0, at 112 (2001). He also provided numerous after-the-fact credibility assessments. He told reporters that Bill Gates' "testimony is inherently without credibility" and "[i]f you can't believe this guy, who else can you believe?" Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 278; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 40. As for the company's other witnesses, the Judge is reported as saying that there "were times when I became impatient with Microsoft witnesses who were giving speeches." "[T]hey were telling me things I just flatly could not credit." Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times. In an interview given the day he entered the break-up order, he summed things up: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus": "Untrue in one thing, untrue in everything." "I don't subscribe to that as absolutely true. But it does lead one to suspicion. It's a universal human experience. If someone lies to you once, how much else can you credit as the truth?" Wilke, Wall St. J.
According to reporter Auletta, the District Judge told him in private that, "I thought they [Microsoft and its executives] didn't think they were regarded as adult members of the community. I thought they would learn." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14. The Judge told a college audience that "Bill Gates is an ingenious engineer, but I don't think he is that adept at business ethics. He has not yet come to realise things he did (when Microsoft was smaller) he should not have done when he became a monopoly." Spiegel, Fin. Times. Characterizing Gates' and his company's "crime" as hubris, the Judge stated that "[i]f I were able to propose a remedy of my devising, I'd require Mr. Gates to write a book report" on Napoleon Bonaparte, "[b]ecause I think [Gates] has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." Auletta, The New Yorker, at 41; see also Auletta, World War 3.0, at 397. The Judge apparently became, in Auletta's words, "increasingly troubled by what he learned about Bill Gates and couldn't get out of his mind the group picture he had seen of Bill Gates and Paul Allen and their shaggy-haired first employees at Microsoft." The reporter wrote that the Judge said he saw in the picture "a smart-mouthed young kid who has extraordinary ability and needs a little discipline. I've often said to colleagues that Gates would be better off if he had finished Harvard." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 168-69; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 46 (reporting the District Judge's statement that "they [Microsoft and its executives] don't act like grown-ups!" "[T]o this day they continue to deny they did anything wrong.").
Nothing in there looks like opinion to you? It doesn't give the appearance of bias if a judge decides to ignore someone's testimony not because it was proven the person was lying, but because he couldn't 'credit what they were saying'? He thinks Gates has some kind of Napoleonic complex, but there's no record of a psychologist testifying to this, it's his opinion based on what he saw in the courtroom and elsewhere. To get to the point, again from the appeals court:
It is clear that the District Judge was not discussing purely procedural matters, which are a permissible subject of public comment under one of the Canon's three narrowly drawn exceptions. He disclosed his views on the factual and legal matters at the heart of the case. His opinions about the credibility of witnesses, the validity of legal theories, the culpability of the defendant, the choice of remedy, and so forth all dealt with the merits of the action. It is no excuse that the Judge may have intended to "educate" the public about the case or to rebut "public misperceptions" purportedly caused by the parties. See Grimaldi, Wash. Post; Microsoft Judge Says He May Step down from Case on Appeal, Wall St. J., Oct. 30, 2000. If those were his intentions, he could have addressed the factual and legal issues as he saw them--and thought the public should see them--in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment, or in a written opinion. Or he could have held his tongue until all appeals were concluded.
Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment.
There's even a nice little statement about him giving one reporter 10 hours of taped interview time. This brought into question how much time was spent with the reporter off tape, and how much information the judge received from the reporter:
What did the reporters convey to the District Judge during their secret sessions? By one account, the Judge spent a total of ten hours giving taped interviews to one reporter. Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14 n.*. We do not know whether he spent even more time in untaped conversations with the same reporter, nor do we know how much time he spent with others. But we think it safe to assume that these interviews were not monologues. Interviews often become conversations. When reporters pose questions or make assertions, they may be furnishing information, information that may reflect their personal views of the case. The published accounts indicate this happened on at least one occasion. Ken Auletta reported, for example, that he told the Judge "that Microsoft employees professed shock that he thought they had violated the law and behaved unethically," at which time the Judge became "agitated" by "Microsoft's 'obstinacy'." Id. at 369. It is clear that Auletta had views of the case. As he wrote in a Washington Post editorial, "[a]nyone who sat in [the District Judge's] courtroom during the trial had seen ample evidence of Microsoft's sometimes thuggish tactics." Ken Auletta, Maligning the Microsoft Judge, Wash. Post, Mar. 7, 2001, at A23.
Conveniently ignoring that those comments were not meant to be public. If there was a violation of ethics is was in the reporters publishing quotes they had been expressly told by the speaker were not meant for publishing. Reporters are supposed to get permission to publish quotes.
Jackson told them to publish the quotes after he issued his judgment, which they did. The publishing wasn't even in question, it was the fact that he gave the interviews in the first place. Of course, in most cases there is an appeals process, and Jackson had past experience with Microsoft that would tell him they would appeal his decision, which, as the appeals court stated, meant the case would still be pending even after his final judgment was issued.
His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates
It's sad to see comments like this coming from Judges that were claiming Jackson was the biased one. It's not Jackson's fault that stating bare facts amounts to ridcule when talking about Microsoft.
It's sad to see that some people can't distinguish between facts and opinion. Jackson's statements as quoted in the appeals court's opinion were clearly his opinions and presented as such. If he had simply stated facts, they might have left him on the case.
Basically, since MS doesn't want alternate implementations of some of their technology, much of it is unpublished. That is the reason it is not "in normal Win32 documentation". Again, that's the difference between it being published and unpublished API's. This has nothing to do with the decree.
Since you seem to be a pedant, allow to me spell this out. Unpublished and/or undocumented in this case means, "not generally available for public consumption".
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The Win32 API documentation doesn't normally include items such as those grouped under protocols. That doesn't mean that every protocol used by Win32 is undocumented, simply that this is not the place where they are normally documented. In many cases there would be a document specific to the protocol, and then there are a few circumstances where Windows actually uses standard protocols without extensions (though looking at the list those are obviously rare).
"The CNO announces he's contracting out the entire Navy. 'What the hell' he says, EDS worked out so well..."
LOL
Now the real question is, how many people understand the EDS reference?
And as far as file formats are concerned, I got two words for you: plain text. Send all and receive all information in plain text, and you're compatible 'til the end of time.
The Navy's been standardized on Word docs as the standard format for those types of files for a long time, they just can't always send them to everyone if they're still using typewriters and WordStar.
The point is that nobody mentioned ANYONE complaining about using these systems. We just assume they must be burdensome, but haven't so much as asked anyone. If Word 2002 doesn't have a good WordStar filter, won't this CREATE headaches when accessing old data?
I'm pretty sure Word has a good WordStar filter, but does WordStar have a good Word2002 filter? I doubt it. They Navy made their specs on their own, and all I've got to say to the people in the Navy is "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell".
That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's
l =/library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp)
Most of them are UI, security, error handling, file management, networking, and so on. The distinction between APIs and protocols is also used here:a m/
Not quite. The settlement specifically talks about APIs seperately from communications protocols, and Microsoft did release a number of previously unpublished APIs (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur
http://microsoft.com/legal/settlementprogr
which links to the above page in the APIs section, but requires you to go through the NDA process for the protocols section.
Of course, if any of the protocol documentation is incomplete as to how to use a particular layer of the protocol, I guess you could call that an unpublished API, but it doesn't really fall under that term as it was used in the settlement (though they'd still have to disclose it; the question is, how would we know if the NDA keeps you from saying whether or not they're complete?).
My trial price was a 2500Euro iBook, 11 month ago. I never regretted it.
;)
My aunt wanted to buy a laptop around the same timeframe and Apple was the first place I looked. Unfortunately, $2500 (and I'm sure what I looked at was cheaper than that) was way out of her price range. The recent reduction in price of Office v.X helps significantly in this (she was buying the laptop mostly for writing her next book and uses Word to write; don't ask me to get her to use another program, I learned a long time ago that it's too much hassle unless people decide for themselves), but at the time I helped her find a laptop that was more than adequate for her needs at less than half the price, and the laptop was still a more powerful computer than her desktop.
I build PC's too myself, it's easier and cheaper and you get what you want. But it's the "geek" way, not the "normal user way".
Depending on the person, I tend to help people build their systems or build them for them. I know that I'm going to support the computer anyway, regardless of whether it's white box or Dell, so I just prefer that it's built from components I know will work right. Putting someone's computer together for them takes less time than the number of calls I get asking for help if I tell them to go buy a computer at CompUSA or wherever. The best part is that about half of the people I've helped this way actually became comfortable with building the system themselves and doing upgrades themselves, which reduced the number of support calls from them significantly (not to mention they also end up tinkering with their software more and though that causes an initial increase in calls, over the long term it reduces them significantly). Other than that, most of my experience with the major OEMs comes from either work or the computers these people bought before they knew me. The Dells we have at work seem to be very good in terms of stability.
I'm in no way a Mac zealot, but I want to give them the credit for the nice systems they make for a really decent price. Many people avoid Macs because they are told they are expensive or incompatible (I was one of them), if put *in the right light* it just all gets relative. Neither of both statements is really true.
Everything's relative any more. Any computer can be made compatible (and most ship in a very compatible state), and expense just depends on what they're looking at. Again, my biggest problem with Apple is simply the (lack of) options in the low to mid-range computers. I don't know anyone that's bought a new monitor every time they bought a new computer (and I know a lot of people that just buy new computers every 4 or so years rather than upgrading the systems every year or two), but that's pretty much what you end up doing in the iMac line.
By the way, while that Packard Bell is "old", I don't consider it a relic. It's a very nice 300Mhz P-II now with 384Meg RAM. I say enough for anything *that* family is going to throw at.
I forgot that the Packard Bell name is still used outside the US. As far as I know Packard Bell never sold a P2 based system in the US, so you might understand my use of the term relic there
I don't know any user that calls tech-support, and I've talked a lot with them. Those who did, told me they weren't helped well at all. Now they call me, and get better service. Note, I live in Europe... in the US, the situation might be a bit different.
Neither do I, except in relation to work computers. Sometimes I wish they would, but usually I know they're getting taken care of if they call me rather than getting shoved around by tech support.
Further followup will be ignored as you are clearly looking to fight rather than learn or simply understand someone else's point of view.
;)
Grown ups tend to have better things to do.
Fine with me, I have a reverse-engineered control protocol to fine-tune
Obviously it's been too long since I spent time reading about network protocols instead of operating system and application APIs. I just looked back at some old documents and they do use API interchangeably with any given layer of a protocol. It would seem to me that this is applying the same term to two things that are only vaguely similar, but what difference does it make? Unfortunately, this means I was wrong, though the settlement and the website Microsoft uses to distribute this information make the distinction along the same lines as I have.
All of that being said, the APIs to which you are referring would normally be within the protocol description, and in normal Win32 documentation wouldn't be listed in the list of APIs.
I'm sick and tired of getting flamed for trying to be reasonable. My point is: the Mac is not expensive if you compare it to their direct competitors. If you don't mind the finishing of your x86 machine you can save a lot of bucks (You know "finishing" is why a Audi is more expensive than a VW)
I wasn't trying to flame, I was just well aware that the Dell you specified wasn't anywhere near the cheapest thing they offered. They'd go out of business selling Celerons at that price. The machine I chose was the first machine I saw when I cliecked on the 'Home & Home Office' link (the only desktop machine immediately seen on that page). Personally, I build my computers myself, it saves a lot of money at the cost of a little time, and I can be sure that the components that go into my machine will be good ones. Most of the machines I build have a lot more 'finishing' to them than a Dell, though how good they look depends mostly on how much I want to spend on a case rather than whatever Dell decides to do with their case design this week.
Mind you the system you specced is not expensive, but I just went to Dell, took the cheapest machine and specced it up to the Mac specs. That's all I did. You went two or three models up, I just assumed taking the cheapest Dell and speccing it up would be the cheapest option. I was wrong... For the rest I am well aware that a G4 is less powerfull than any AMD/Intel around now.
I just took the first one I saw. I don't know why Dell is selling Celeron systems for that much. I suspect that part of the problem is that the 1.7GHz is near the top of the speed for Celeron chips, while the 2.0GHz is almost the slowest P4 you can buy now. There wasn't even much speccing up to do on the P4 system, and frankly I would've preferred options to get rid of some things if it were my own system (for instance, I've never owned a 56K modem).
Everyone around here is pointing out that Mom&Pop shops or self-built machines will cost less. Yup, I knew that all along. Everybody here seems to say: people buy there and not in big OEM's. Wait a second! Is that true? Well, I support several families when they have trouble with computers. Let's enumerate: two Fujitsu-Siemens, one Compaq, one Packard-Bell, and exactly one "noname-white-thingy" (which is more flaky than all the other ones). All the owners of these machines are normal users, nothing fancy. Beige boxes? I've only seen them at Geek's places. Of, and Mac users never call me for support: how does *that* come???
IDC published a report back in August that showed white box PC manufacturers have 40% of the market. As for the Mac users, I'd guess they're calling Apple for support, as a recent Consumer reports survey showed that Macs require more support calls than Dell on average (though Macs still faired better than the other brands you named), though Mac users are more satisfied with the support they receive than any other PC OEM's customers. That Packard-Bell must be a relic by now, too.
And now I stop this whole fucking flamewar (it was not intended as one, in the first place), and let you live further in your misconception that Macs are expensive for what they are.
My 'misconception' that Macs are expensive comes from the simple fact that when I spec out a machine for my uses from Apple it comes out to around $4K without monitor. In order to get the same price range on a Dell I have to go pretty far overboard (2GB of RAM for starters, I could cut the price to less than $3K by going with *just* 1GB of RAM, despite the fact that most of my current systems have more than enough RAM at 512MB), not to mention, again, that I build my computers myself and already own most of the software that would go on any new Intel machine I would build.
All of that being said, a low to mid-range Mac is very competetive in terms of price. Still, it bothers me that their lowest-priced tower system is $1600. I'll never buy an iMac-like computer because I know damned well that the monitor is one of the most expensive parts I use with any computer, and outlasts everything but the floppy drive (oh, sorry, no floppy in a Mac). I'd love to give the Mac a run to see if it's something I could use, but $1600 is a steep trial price, and that's not even the system I'd buy if I decided I really wanted to use one.
That's EXACTLY what people refer to when they call it an "illegal monopoly". It means that they are a monopoly that is breaking the law. Thus, the phrase, "illegal monopoly".
Then they need to go back to English class, because that phrase implies that the monopoly itself is illegal, not that what they're doing is illegal. You can illegally abuse your monopoly, but you do not have an illegal monopoly. The use of the phrase 'illegal monopoly' is the primary reason that most people don't understand antitrust law in the first place. They think that a monopoly can be illegal and don't understand why Microsoft (and others) isn't getting beat over the head just for being a monopoly.
You are correct! It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is, however, illegal to have an illegal monopoly, which is exactly what MS has been declared.
That's incorrect, because there is no illegal monopoly. It's illegal to leverage an existing monopoly in order to restrain trade or gain another monopoly. How you use a monopoly can be illegal, but the monopoly itself can not.
I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).
It really depends on what you are doing, though. From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level. Of course, if they needed an API rather than a protocol, they wouldn't be harping over this NDA, either.
You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.
Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.
but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side, as it's the way Windows handles the interaction between CIFS and the file system, authentication, and print services, for example. Since Samba doesn't run on Windows, the information required to do that would not be in a Windows API, because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux. Now, if the protocol was sending data in a way that was not described in the protocol itself, you'd have a point.
So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.
We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
I agree that both are very important, but there are cases in which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol, and vice versa. My point was primarily to make a distinction between APIs and protocols and to point out that if Samba was looking for an API, the API wouldn't be covered under this NDA. Since CIFS is on the list of protocols covered under the NDA and CIFS is one of the protocols used by Samba, it does make sense that they are looking for this particular information. Whether or not they need details on the API that Windows uses with CIFS would really depend on the level of detail in the CIFS specification in the first place. You certainly don't need the Windows networking API to communicate with Windows systems over IPv4, but it makes life easier if you're trying to communicate over IPv4 from a Windows system.
and now, the lowest base price for a PowerMac G4 on Apple's site:
Power Mac G4 Dual 867MHz w/133MHz system bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
Optical 2 - None
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual-display w/32MB DDR
56K internal modem
Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
Mac OS - U.S. Englis
$1,699.00
Guess I need to drop some RAM and up the hard drive, drop the CD-RW to 16x and the DVD-ROM to 10x, and drop the monitor.
Dimension 4550:
P4 2.0GHz
1GB 266MHz DDR RAM
40GB ATA-100 7200rpm HD
M782 17" (I'd never use the monitor in your list so I upgraded)
16x DVD-ROM
48x/24x/48x Max CD-RW Drive
Harman Kardon® HK-206 Speakers
Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet
56K PCI Telephony Modem
Premium Dell Movie Studio Bundle
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Microsoft® Works Suite 2002 w/Money Standard
$1,409.00
and that's just a system from the same damned vendor that is significantly better in many ways than what you specced out. Never mind that I would never buy an OEM computer because they rip people off and that the majority of PCs sold are white box x86 systems from small OEMs you've probably never heard of and/or mom&pop stores.
Asking why we don't use RISC processors in x86-based PCs would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it?
Actually, most current x86 processors have a RISC core with a CISC front-end. So, we basically ARE using RISC processors for x86-based PCs. The item people seem to be looking for is dropping the x86 support rather than switching from CISC to RISC.
And I thought that AMDs "it's the equivalent of, so why don't we just call it that anyway" policy was a new thing
They (and Cyrix) also used a P-rating back when they were shipping chips for Pentium motherboards (Cyrix 6x86 for instance) to give you some idea of what speed of Pentium they compared to.