If we are sill running 32 bit software in 2038 I will fully blame MSFT. But 32-bit OS can still use 64-bit numbers. And they do! In fact Windows's native time format *is* 64-bit.
I love it when people complain about the sig. Then I get to tell them that C guarantees that a short can store numbers between -32767 and 32767 (no, I didn't get the negative one wrong) inclusive, regardless of CHAR_BIT or the word size of the system. A short can store *at least* the range -32767 to 32767: C99 5.2.4.2.1 says
Their [SHRT_MIN and SHRT_MAX] implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
In other words it's perfectly legal C to define short to be 18-bits, say, and then I can have all the "short" days I want.
OK, thanks, I hadn't appreciated that. I hadn't seen the minutes but the Chris Wilson blog linked through the open letter (and TFA) still reads to me as "we need to make sure we stay compatible!" rather than "we don't want this".
OK, maybe I'm missing the point here but AFAICS no-one's arguing against the new draft; instead, the argument about whether you accept the new syntax inside tags or not. One side says yes, other says we should keep that for older JS and put the new stuff inside tags or similar so we can tell ahead of time which one we're supposed to be dealing with and make sure we don't break existing web code.
I don't see anything about closing the web or stomping on the little guy or anything like that. Where's that coming from?
Among its potential duties is intruder investigation, which could include scouting out unidentified boats, So what can a small scout vessel report back that a surveillance satellite couldn't?
OK, maybe the name painted on the side of the ship. But that's about it, isn't it, and that's not necessarily the most important detail? It can't carry any decent weaponry - a 7.62 cannon wouldn't be much use against a ship and I doubt a small vessel is a stable enough platform to snipe the crew.
The whole design of GCC is perverted so that someone cannot easily extract a front-end or back-end. This is broken by design, as the GPL people do believe this would make it easier for commercial entities to `steal' a front-end or back-end and attach it to a proprietary code-generator (or language). That's entirely wrong. RMS has been worried about this, and he (through the FSF who own the copyright) have previously objected to any patches that serialize the GCC's intermediate state for just this reason. (Although GCC's new link-time optimization work will change this.)
GCC's intermediate formats GIMPLE and GENERIC are based on a research compiler, not a deliberate perversion. There's no technical steps to stop reuse, and indeed it has been done - Sun distribute the GCC 4.0.4 front-end altered to use their own SPARC code generator as a back-end.
It's what MSFT does for Unix Services for Windows. the GPL components simply get acknowledged and pointed back at the developers. Oh no they don't. Look on the CD under sources/Interix/gnu.
No, Microsoft's FXCop actually does all of this for.NET. It can be configured to solve all of your examples, I think, through global and per-project custom dictionaries although it does assume CamelCase and will complain if you use too long strings of all CAPS. (But you can turn that warning off.) It does more than spell-checking, e.g. you can tell it to warn when people use "LogIn" and you prefer the term "LogOn".
C++ requires that a parameter passed to a function have a different name from the same class member. I don't understand this - are you saying you can't have
class foo { public:
foo(int first) : first(first) {} private:
int first; };
Comeau C++ accepts this in strict mode. I've never seen the delete-a-letter convention though, I've always seen prefix-members-with-m (non property members) or prefix-input-parameters-with-something to solve this.
They released a patch yesterday, discovered problems with it since yesterday then fixed it today. Yet you've been hearing about these problems for weeks? Actually, no, they did know about this ahead of time. From the MSRC blog:
The result of our comprehensive testing is that at the time of release, only one minor quality issue was known and guidance as well as a hotfix was ready for customers at the same time of release. I'd guess they haven't had time to put the hotfix through the full test cycle yet but still needed to release the general fix.
Is basically the MIT license with a few tweaks to the first paragraph (e.g. person -> person or organisation), the second paragraph expanded to cover some of the ideas in the middle section of the BSD licence and the third paragraph verbatim (or practically verbatim). Note that it appears equivalent to the MIT license in that there's no non-endorsement clause as you'd find in BSD or Apache 1.1.
This is not a brute force hacker, but just a database of some key with a fancy interface on top that pretends to be calculation just just updates a progress bar. The database will release some key after some hours of "calculation". Users notice that the (enterprise?) key is accepted and tell it works. MS will notice some volume keys are used too often wan will block them at the next wga update (and the next service pack) No, that's not how new the volume license system works. There's two classes of volume license key for Vista:
Multiple Activation Key - will only work a limited number of times
Key Management Services - requires a local license server that maintains the count of keys used and communicates with Microsoft
From the new site:
The varous[sic] source code managed by rpm.org is held in a series of mercurial repositories. Now I'm all for innovation, when appropriate - but if you want people to pitch into a new project why pick a fringe VCS? Why not pick something standard that everyone will have like subversion? mercurial didn't even make it into base Fedora.
Also, may I point out that MacOS X arrives in a full DVD installation set, unlike OEM Windows installs. Having original install media rather than OEM re-imaging software certainly makes life easier for the user.
That must vary by reseller, I've never seen that. Certainly the Microsoft Windows XP OEM media (the shiny hologram-style CD) is a full install. There's only one or two files different versus a retail full install CD.
I don't feel any desire to get used to any "ribbons" flying across my screen.
It's just a tabbed large-icon toolbar. It's nothing to fear.
It's actually very usable when you've learned your way around it (e.g. to edit the header and footer in word you go to the 'insert' tab in Word - hmm?) and many of the old key commands still work, e.g. ALT-E S for 'paste special'. But not in Outlook, bah.
Well there's a bit of junk in the OLE serialisation format but not a lot.
The new formats are zipped by default. The zip files do contain the data as XML rather than a binary format which must be a small loss but it's gained back by zipping them.
Would you like to give some modern day examples, or is this just the "Java - write once, test everywhere"
That's what I meant. I wasn't trying to take a shot at Java, by the way: I just meant you'd can't rely on something to just work if you don't explicitly test it. But it is easy to find examples of things that still don't "just work" in all Javas, e.g. this eclipse bug from last month.
A while ago I compared the number of dependencies to other components between Mozilla and the Internet Explorer.
Uh, I don't understand your process here. Most of the DLLs you highlight for IE are well-documented parts of the OS interface - all of the DLLs in the first diagram, for instance. To pick another example you include rsabase, crypt and msasn1 as IE dependencies - these are Windows's built-in SSL implementation. Yet you don't show an SSL library for Mozilla?
And, to be frank, who cares how many DLLs either program is broken into? Your focus was less-complex-is-more-secure but in both cases it only matters whether it renders the HTML you feed it securely.
And that's why MS have humungous testing labs, and why they don't release 0-day fixes to security problems: they've got so many scenarios to test.
So in the Windows world you tell the customers which configurations you tested on and support. That's what the guy here is saying: the OSS world is too open-ended, it needs to slim down the number of platforms to cut down vendor testing and support burden.
Simple, have standards that people/distributions can *choose* to follow. Projects such as Linux Standard Base (and others, list / talk about them if you know of them) allows distributions to have a common point and common environment.
Sure but if you write your app for the LSB environment and 10 distros (say) claim LSB compatibility then you can't realistically assume it'll just work on all of them: you need to test it on all 10. Sure, that is the idea, but in the real world it's never quite that simple. (It's the Java write-once-run-everywhere myth: all the JVMs are written to the same standard, right, so why doesn't all Java code just work everywhere as intended? Because every JVM and environment has its own set of bugs and quirks. It's a great idea, it just falls down in practice.)
So you still need to do 10 times as much testing. And you still need 10 test environments set up so you've got the right distro at hand when your customer calls with problems. Etc.
Last I checked, neither Atlas nor GWT were open source in any sense of the word,
But you can download the Atlas source code and at first glance the licence meets the Open Source definition: it's a simple no endorsement, no liability, no patent disputes licence. So what's the problem?
Backwards compatibility for the Xbox360 has been extremely hit-and-miss -- Dubious at best, certainly over-hyped
Based on what? There's lots compatibile including virtually all the AAA titles. Sure they're missing a few I'd like to play again (Beyond Good and Evil and Soul Calibur) but it's a pretty big list. And it's not like the new system's short of games, esp. if you count Live Arcade.
Then you've never had to attach to system processes like IIS from a non-admin account, e.g. to debug a COM+ or an ASP.NET application.
There's two debug privileges on Windows: the "Debugger Users" group that the Microsoft Debug Manager checks before allowing you to call through it, and the SeDebug priv that allows you to attach to non-.NET processes that you don't own. See this article in MSDN:
In Visual Studio.NET, there are two things that determine if a user can debug. One is the Debugger Users group, and the other is user privilege, such as administrator, power user, or SEDebug.
The Debugger Users group determines if the user can access the VS debug component (mainly MDM-Machine Debug Manager, which is part of Visual Studio), so being a member of the group means that you are guaranteed for accessing MDM. So at this point, you can debug your open process and see the list of process on your machine.
But after this, whether you can debug other user's process is decided by your privilege. For example, if you want to debug other people's native process, you should have SEDebug privilege. For the other users' Managed process, you should be administrator on the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
So why not talk to Meraki and see if you can work something out rather than whining about it on your blog?
OK, thanks, I hadn't appreciated that. I hadn't seen the minutes but the Chris Wilson blog linked through the open letter (and TFA) still reads to me as "we need to make sure we stay compatible!" rather than "we don't want this".
OK, maybe I'm missing the point here but AFAICS no-one's arguing against the new draft; instead, the argument about whether you accept the new syntax inside tags or not. One side says yes, other says we should keep that for older JS and put the new stuff inside tags or similar so we can tell ahead of time which one we're supposed to be dealing with and make sure we don't break existing web code.
I don't see anything about closing the web or stomping on the little guy or anything like that. Where's that coming from?
OK, maybe the name painted on the side of the ship. But that's about it, isn't it, and that's not necessarily the most important detail? It can't carry any decent weaponry - a 7.62 cannon wouldn't be much use against a ship and I doubt a small vessel is a stable enough platform to snipe the crew.
GCC's intermediate formats GIMPLE and GENERIC are based on a research compiler, not a deliberate perversion. There's no technical steps to stop reuse, and indeed it has been done - Sun distribute the GCC 4.0.4 front-end altered to use their own SPARC code generator as a back-end.
Is basically the MIT license with a few tweaks to the first paragraph (e.g. person -> person or organisation), the second paragraph expanded to cover some of the ideas in the middle section of the BSD licence and the third paragraph verbatim (or practically verbatim). Note that it appears equivalent to the MIT license in that there's no non-endorsement clause as you'd find in BSD or Apache 1.1.
- Multiple Activation Key - will only work a limited number of times
- Key Management Services - requires a local license server that maintains the count of keys used and communicates with Microsoft
neither of which will work with your scheme.- Windows 95: 1995
- Windows 98: 1998
- Windows ME: 2000
and the NT line- Windows NT 3.1: 1993
- Windows NT 4.0: 1996
- Windows 2000: 2000
- Windows XP: 2001
- Windows Vista: (~2007)
XP, according to Wikipedia, was 10/25/2001, although the CDs are labelled '2002 version'.It's actually very usable when you've learned your way around it (e.g. to edit the header and footer in word you go to the 'insert' tab in Word - hmm?) and many of the old key commands still work, e.g. ALT-E S for 'paste special'. But not in Outlook, bah.
Well there's a bit of junk in the OLE serialisation format but not a lot.
The new formats are zipped by default. The zip files do contain the data as XML rather than a binary format which must be a small loss but it's gained back by zipping them.
And, to be frank, who cares how many DLLs either program is broken into? Your focus was less-complex-is-more-secure but in both cases it only matters whether it renders the HTML you feed it securely.
And that's why MS have humungous testing labs, and why they don't release 0-day fixes to security problems: they've got so many scenarios to test.
So in the Windows world you tell the customers which configurations you tested on and support. That's what the guy here is saying: the OSS world is too open-ended, it needs to slim down the number of platforms to cut down vendor testing and support burden.
So you still need to do 10 times as much testing. And you still need 10 test environments set up so you've got the right distro at hand when your customer calls with problems. Etc.
There's two debug privileges on Windows: the "Debugger Users" group that the Microsoft Debug Manager checks before allowing you to call through it, and the SeDebug priv that allows you to attach to non-.NET processes that you don't own. See this article in MSDN:
Intel's CEO is an economist, while AMD's chief might actually have a clue how a chip works...
So what? Running big business is not the same skillset as chip engineer.
The CTOs, now *they* need a technical background. CEOs certainly don't, that's what Harvard MBAs are for.