I can understand if you said ActiveX is just OLE all over again, but.NET is different.
Having said that, I can say that MS has done an excellent job providing "Interop" tools for.NET code to talk to COM components and vice-versa. But the two technologies are fundamentally different. If you want to get a taste of the differences, check out:
".NET and COM: The Complete Interoperability Guide" by Adam Nathan.
At first I thought it was an honest (if biased) Linux/WinXP comparison until I came to this:
"Silly little Linux features I've missed... When I want to find out the day and date, or check a date a few months ahead, I'm used to clicking on my little KDE clock and having a calendar pop up for me. I can't seem to do this in Windows, even though I've tried. Again, this may be a feature only super-geeks can can use in Windows that is hidden from us ordinary desktop people. "
Yikes! This is a "hidden" feature?! I guess the author has not mastered the art of the double-click because when I double-click on my clock, I get a calendar...
This article MUST be a spoof. C'mon, fess up somebody...
Word processors and web browsers have pretty much come to the end of their innovation, and now they've become commodities -- they pretty much do all that they're going to do.
Sure, there's room for some incremental improvement, but honestly, is there really any rock-your-world innovation going on in word processors any more? Not really, right? How about for browsers? A little more than word processors (woo-hoo, popup blockers!), but there's still not a whole lot of room for sea-change improvements.
As for programming tools, I don't think it's fair to say that MS hasn't continued to innovate. The recent VS.NET IDE is *way cool*... much better than VC++. Also, the.NET framework is also quite a leap forward over anything VC++ has.
I don't disagree that there is some stagnation in the product lines you mention, but I think it's unfair to say that MS is ignoring them ONLY because they're a monopoly, and they can get away with ignoring them. There's a certain point in a product's life cycle where more and more features give you diminishing returns (I would argue that MS Word has too many features...).
I think that space is just another strategic goal that countries are going to compete over, and I don't hold out much hope that the "let's all work together" rallying cry is going to be heeded.
Space is far too important from a strategic military perspective for countries to ignore it. Big changes are afoot in military tactics, and GPS-enabled precision weapons are at the core of it. Look at the recent Iraq war, where precision bombs were able to replace some of the slow-moving and cumbersome artillery, and I think we get an idea of where things are headed. Add in spy satellite technology, and proliferation of ballistic missiles (and the consequent anti-missile systems), and you can bet that countries are going to invest heavily in the defense of their space assets.
And I'm not just talking about the US... SOMEONE is going to take the lead in space militarization. For DEFENSIVE purposes only at first, I'm sure. And I'm willing to bet that, in our lifetimes, some countries will start to back away from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, once the competition starts to heat up...
Like it or not, I think a quick scan of the history books teaches us that if a technological innovation yields a military advantage, someone is going to take it. And personally, I think it's dangerous to ignore that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean we have to go redesign all our cities again?
>> What is stopping the DDos software from
>> relaxing the rules itself?
The firewall (ICF) settings require a privileged account to change them.
Just to be clear -- .NET is not based on COM/OLE.
.NET is different.
.NET code to talk to COM components and vice-versa. But the two technologies are fundamentally different. If you want to get a taste of the differences, check out:
I can understand if you said ActiveX is just OLE all over again, but
Having said that, I can say that MS has done an excellent job providing "Interop" tools for
".NET and COM: The Complete Interoperability Guide" by Adam Nathan.
According to Google, the operating systems used to access Google (which I would think correlates fairly well to overall desktop OS use) are:
Win98 21%
WinXP 49%
Win2000 18%
WinNT 3%
Mac 4%
Win95 1%
Linux 1%
Other 3%
So "Windows" accounts for 92%.
...for personal use, anyways.
h tml
Same reason many companies develop software only for the Windows platform. Here, have some data:
Operating Systems Used to Access Google, Sept 2003:
Windows XP 38%
Windows 98 29%
Windows 2000 20%
Windows NT 3%
Mac 3%
Windows 95 1%
Linux 1%
Other 5%
Source:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.
At first I thought it was an honest (if biased) Linux/WinXP comparison until I came to this:
...
"Silly little Linux features I've missed
When I want to find out the day and date, or check a date a few months ahead, I'm used to clicking on my little KDE clock and having a calendar pop up for me. I can't seem to do this in Windows, even though I've tried. Again, this may be a feature only super-geeks can can use in Windows that is hidden from us ordinary desktop people. "
Yikes! This is a "hidden" feature?! I guess the author has not mastered the art of the double-click because when I double-click on my clock, I get a calendar...
This article MUST be a spoof. C'mon, fess up somebody...
Word processors and web browsers have pretty much come to the end of their innovation, and now they've become commodities -- they pretty much do all that they're going to do. Sure, there's room for some incremental improvement, but honestly, is there really any rock-your-world innovation going on in word processors any more? Not really, right? How about for browsers? A little more than word processors (woo-hoo, popup blockers!), but there's still not a whole lot of room for sea-change improvements. As for programming tools, I don't think it's fair to say that MS hasn't continued to innovate. The recent VS.NET IDE is *way cool*... much better than VC++. Also, the .NET framework is also quite a leap forward over anything VC++ has.
I don't disagree that there is some stagnation in the product lines you mention, but I think it's unfair to say that MS is ignoring them ONLY because they're a monopoly, and they can get away with ignoring them. There's a certain point in a product's life cycle where more and more features give you diminishing returns (I would argue that MS Word has too many features...).
Works great.
I think that space is just another strategic goal that countries are going to compete over, and I don't hold out much hope that the "let's all work together" rallying cry is going to be heeded.
Space is far too important from a strategic military perspective for countries to ignore it. Big changes are afoot in military tactics, and GPS-enabled precision weapons are at the core of it. Look at the recent Iraq war, where precision bombs were able to replace some of the slow-moving and cumbersome artillery, and I think we get an idea of where things are headed. Add in spy satellite technology, and proliferation of ballistic missiles (and the consequent anti-missile systems), and you can bet that countries are going to invest heavily in the defense of their space assets.
And I'm not just talking about the US... SOMEONE is going to take the lead in space militarization. For DEFENSIVE purposes only at first, I'm sure. And I'm willing to bet that, in our lifetimes, some countries will start to back away from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, once the competition starts to heat up...
Like it or not, I think a quick scan of the history books teaches us that if a technological innovation yields a military advantage, someone is going to take it. And personally, I think it's dangerous to ignore that fact.