Doesn't Linux have enough problems getting a foot in the door?
Partially kidding, but Oracle? Who in the Linux community wants to see Oracle running on Linux?
Oracle use to be quite grand but never evolved past the 'usability' model, mainly because they made so much money off of selling training. Virtually killing it for serious developers when interface and application independance became the norm for databases in the early 1990s.
Although they did learn to some degree and focused on the database technologies instead of trying to keep users locked into their usability patterns.
There are SO many database technologies I would choose on ANY scale project before Oracle. I guess I am a bit biased, but I also was trained and developed on Oracle for several years in the early 90s, and have been smacked around trying to make current Oracle technologies work in environments when IBM or MS and even MYSQL do things so must faster and easier.
I just don't see this as a big thing, except for the people that have bought the Oracle kool-aid and don't realize there are better solutions out there.
I am curious about how this is a proof of concept virus if it has been done before surely the concept has already been proven?
Ok, this is exactly what I was thinking, but to add to it, apparently there are a lot of people out there that doesn't 'get' that code can easily infect more than one target technology.
Windows is even a proof of concept, as the early viruses infected Win9x but couldn't infect NT, this changed and later code was created that could infect either OS base.
Although the Windows example is easier to implement, but the potential for a virus to find common exploits and infect multiple OSes is not a hard thing to construct. Especially just the latter, a single binary that can cross infect OSes.
Taking a few tools I think of ways to create a replicating code segment that would propagate and function on Solaris, Linux, OpenBSD, OSX, and Windows. That is more that dual cross infection, that is covering most everything out there.
It would be naive for any OS user to ever feel their choice techology is above flaw or infection, especailly when social engineering works so well with under educated users to allow malicious access. Even as much fun is made of Windows, most infection in the last few years is from social tricks rather than inherent OS flaws.
Microsoft is a 'big' company, and even as much as we can dislike MS as a whole or things they do or have done, it is easy to forget that a LOT of strong minded tech people work there.
So when MS releases something of benefit it is a bit hard to stomach for a lot of people, but easy once we step back and remember that MS as a whole is comprised of many bright tech people that USE technology on a daily basis, and not even all the people at Microsoft are 'Windows' only people.
MS research is one area that is the most evident of tech minded people without the corporate controls, but good developers exists throughout MS so we can't expect everything they do to be wrong or evil. Look at it from a statistical view if nothing else.
So sure MS will put out selfless tools that help customers and computer users from time to time.
Having been a person that has watched MS for a long time, I remember days when they seemed to care about the little person and companies, and a shift in the mid 90s where that focus was lost. I remember when MS technologies were made and distributed for many OSes, not just Windows. From Media Player to IE, etc. These were free technologies that didn't fit the 'Windows' business model that Ballmer has made the central focus of the company, unfortunately.
The potential for this concept of business to return is there. Ballmer is a business person, not a true tech person, nor an innovative mind when it comes to technology. He is the face of the evil side of MS, and Bill G. giving control to him is the biggest mistake of MS history.
If I was going to paint the evil face of MS it would be Ballmer and his followers. I don't think Gates understands business enough to realize this, nor do I think he is inherently a business only person. His parents were very charitable and pushed for making peoples lives better. His failure is in not recognizing the evil aspects of business and the greed that is can create and is embodied in Ballmer.
So offtopic a bit, but the foundation of my views on this technology. Not everything at MS is evil and there still exist people there with the original 'empowering' concepts that flourished pre-Ballmer mindset and control. Gates use to wrangle him in, and for whatever reason stopped, and MS became the company they fought against for years at Ballmers control and advice.
So it is nice to see from time to time evidence that the non-Ballmer business model still does exist within MS, who knows, maybe there is hope for them to figure out the Ballmer and his followers mistakes and go back to a company that gives a crap.
Wow a computer from a major manufacturer? Let's see... Only several hundred of them, desktops, servers, laptops from Dell, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, Acer and others, since 1994
Ever look at a Dell driver CD? It's got hundreds of drivers, all named something like "902378346.exe" that don't tell you what they're for. You have to use their horrible little gui interface, and hope that the audio driver that you pick is for the hardware in your machine.
Ok, how about 'most' manufacturers?
The thing is, this is NOT new or unique or even a 'novel' concept. I have a Toshiba Laptop here with a single integrated install for Windows and Single install if you used another copy of Windows that just loads all their drivers.
BTW This is also an 'EFI' Toshiba laptop. Oh, and it is also 4 years old. And this is my under my hands 'literally' example of a major company that provides this level of support and ease to their users.
In the example I gave, when we owned a large OEM company, we even used the tools for Windows (provided by Microsoft) to slip our custom drivers into the Installation and Windows Setup CD shipped with the computers.
All the users had to do was 'install' Windows, and our drivers installed automatically and even our 'Settings' installed automatically, from branding the computer with our support numbers to even 'branding' IE to have our Logo and Company name instead of Internet Explorer, it even installed our Tech Support Shortcuts for the users.
If the user did not use our Windows CD to install Windows, They could run our 'single' setup installation to add all the drivers to their system, and even select if they wanted to 'exclude' drivers.
What Apple is doing is not any different or what people should focus on, it is nice, but not the reason to give kudos to Apple.
I'm not knocking Apple for any of this, although I think by them opening up their hardware to Windows, it will in the long run hurt OSX. Right now OSX isn't matching Windows for performance on the same hardware, not even with native applications, and the emulated application that have not been ported to Intel suffer even a higher performance hit.
I guess I was surprised that anyone would think the single driver installation was a 'new' or somehow wonderful thing.
From the above post and other posts, it seems some Mac users think that easy driver installation or availability is a hard thing in the Windows world. It isn't.
Sure there are companies that have messed up driver installation processes and even manufacturers that don't integrate the drivers, but this is a lack of the manufacturer, not an inherent inability or flaw in Windows. You just have a lot of hardware options in the Windows world, and not all companies are good about the quality of their drivers or their installation.
Take Care...
Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
If you are going to bring up OS/2 at least try to get your facts straight. OS/2 failed because people stopped porting/writing OS/2 apps when they realized they could just write Windows apps and they would also run in OS/2. Dual booting is different.
Ok, that is what I said, the only difference is that you assume I don't get the fact the system is 'dual booting'. Please don't assume.
I agree that dual booting IS different, but the side effects ARE the same when dealing with large scale applications. Sure a business Application here or there, there is a difference, but gaming for one is an area that it would be comparable.
If you were a Large Gaming Developer, would you invest another 5 Million in making an OSX port, or just ensure it runs under Windows on Macs, and ask the users to boot to Windows mode?
Now facter in the Windows version has the full support of XNA technologies and will integrate with networking, sound and have better video performance than OpenGL on OSX will ever have.
Do you think these companies will EVER release the game for OSX? Probably Not.
This is very close to what happened with OS/2, no matter if they have reboot or not, that is a minimal difference, especially to the developers of large scale applications.
If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.
No. Because they would be running OSX, just like VirtualPC, as the OSX kernel is vastly different and cannot do subsystems like Windows NT can.
So this would be very much like existing OSX enviroments running an occasional Windows Application at sub-par performance. People are NOT going to run games or advanced CAD applications at 50% peformance if they can boot to Windows to run them at 100% speed.
Watch when you see Adobe Photoshop run faster under Windows than OSX, even a native OSX Intel version. This is where Apple is arrogant about a OSX having a performance edge, and it appears it DOES NOT. So if a Graphic Designer has a Mac/Intel and all his Adobe applications run 5-10% faster under Windows, do you really think this will help the success of OSX?
Also a funny thing to entertain, it would fairly easy for MS to license OSX, and create an x32 OSX subsystem for NT. As it is fully technically possible to do on the NT kernel WITHOUT emulation or virtualization and MS could run OSX applications at 'full speed' natively on the Windows NT architecture seamlessly with Windows applications. But again, that would be stupid for MS, based on the old OS/2 model and how it screws the main hosting OS, that is unless OSX on NT runs faster than OSX on its Darwin core.
I have said this a lot on Slashdot, and usually it gets dismissed, but I will restate it.
Know your competition and DO NOT under estimate Microsoft.
This just shows that at least they 'get' this concept of knowing their competition. This also would demonstrate that Redmond is not blind to the advances in the Open Source world.
Not only are the using and learning from it, but all it would take is a bit of popularity to see a Linux subsystem for NT, like the already MS *nix subsystem shipping free for NT.
It's kinda cool that Apple can essentially release ONE drivers disk and be done with it. A lot has been said over the years about Apple's benefits of having known hardware...
This is how it works out with Windows. Here, have one installer. It will work on all our machines, and support everything in it. One Installshield script. It was the fastest WinXP or ANY Windows installs I've ever done.
You have to be kidding that THIS is the reason you are praising Apple?
Have you ever bought ANY 'name brand' Windows PC, ever?
From owning an OEM company starting back in 1997, all our systems always shipped with a simple and single install disk with all the drivers automated for anyone installing or reinstalling Windows.
Additionally, I haven't bought a computer in the last 8 years from ANY manufacturer that didn't include a reasonably well done 'single' driver installation process, or even having the drivers slipped into the Windows Installation itself on the OEM CD.
This is NOT new or even remotely unique or exciting.
There are other reasons to get excited about the dual boot (whether they are good or bad) but declaring how wonderful Apple is for doing what PC manufacters have done for years is insane...
This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...
Sure this may help their hardware sales, and it does offer this argument for the Apple community, "Why not buy an Apple, you can run Windows too?"
However, what this says to developers is what it said to them during OS/2 days, and why no 'native' good OS/2 ports of popular software existed. There was no need, it ran Windows just fine, so developers would just write a Windows version and expect OS/2 to run their application inside the Windows binaries.
The same could potentially happen for OSX and Apple. Especially in the games market. Why spend good money on an OSX port of your game if you assume most Mac users could just boot WindowsXP or Vista and run your game? Especially when Windows still has a video/performance margin over OSX technology for gaming.
The are two marginal ways this could benefit Apple. 1) Apple becames a major hardware vendor, and competes with Dell and Gateway, etc. 2) Users do start buying Macs to dual boot, and find they like OSX much better than Windows. (Unfortunately, as hard is this is to stomach for a lot of Slashdotters, this doesn't happen in the world as much as OSX proponents would like to believe.) Usually when users are forced or try to move fully to OSX they do it kicking and screaming and if they were comfortable in Windows, end up back there. (And yes, I have seen this in several companies, management gets on the buzz, flips over a department of 20 or 30 users to OSX, and the users end up forcing the return of Windows PCs - especailly in department that were once Mac dominated like graphic design but later moved all their users to Windows in the 90s. The Users have not always been so keen to move back to Mac when it is forced on them.)
So even if this does help Apple and Mac with marketshare, it will also become a contest of preferred usability between Vista and OSX, and I don't see OSX 'always' winning.
My personal opinion is that this will boost OSX and Mac sales initially, but in the long run will destroy OSX, and Apple will potentially just become another Dell or Gateway.
Which I do not think is such a good thing. Competition is a good thing.
Besides, like I said above this type of move certainly didn't work for OS/2, and not only from the developer perspective, users liked OS/2, but not 'enough' to purchase it and Windows to run Windows applications.
So will OSX be strong enough to keep users in OSX for the majority of use or just be a side booted OS, and people end up flipping to Windows for games and applications OSX doesn't yet have?
If people keep finding themselves flipping back to Windows, they will start spending more time in Windows, just to not have to reboot. And when this slide happens, OSX will not be the dominate OS even running on Apple Macs.
(Sure Windows runs on Macs already in VirtualPC, but there is big difference between running an emulator to 'get by' for some business applications, and booting into the full experience of Windows and running Windows games at high speed. And I think Apple is a little to arrogant on how good OSX is to think they will keep the market even on their own hardware.)
He had me at "Why do aspx pages have to be compiled with the Build feature in Visual Studio in order to work properly? How would I get an aspx page to function without Visual Studio.NET?"
I didn't even try to go there in my response. It was such a head shaker I didn't know what to do with it except go, uh? Or maybe explain that aspx files are text like asp or html and Visual Studio is not required to write text files.
I find stuff like this in posts that are borderline 'scary', especailly when people demonstrate they are using the technologies or have used them, and yet know so little about them in use and concept.
Truly no offense, but if these are really your questions, there is a lot more than syntax differences between ASP and ASP.NET that you do not get.
Little things like VB is not ASP.NET or ASP.
Stricter Typing is an option of ASP.NET, but NOT required. Check your Server Development environment, but don't assume it is broken or significantly different.
ASP has also changed over the years and based on Server configuration commands like: Form.Request("Name")
will break in newer version and you have to change the statement to just:
Request("Name")
This does not mean anything other than an evolving set of technologies, and the server configuration environment of which they are ran in.
Oh one more thing... Why does IIS not have any support for Server Side languages other than js, vb, and cs
Who said it ONLY supports VB, C#, and JavaScript? IIS is VERY extensible and can handle anything.NET uses, so this adds a whole new range and level of languages. In addition to ISAPI and other plug in methods for handling pages, which is how a lot of people work independantly in everything from PHP to Python. (Python also can be accessed directly from the.NET constructs as well, just you can Pascal and MANY other languages).
So whatever teacher told you IIS only supported VB, JS, or CS where either stupid or lying to you.
IIS itself didn't even 'inherently' support any native language, initial ASP and VB and JavaScript support was via ISAPI modules, just like PHP is handled today.
Truly spend some time looking this stuff up, don't even take my word for ANYTHING. Especially if you are limiting yourself to VB or C# because you think it is the ONLY support language IIS supports.
Also anyone reading this post, if you are in an IIS development situation and don't understand the extensibility offered by IIS, take time to find out for yourself, you are NOT locked into ANY language.
VB, JS, and CS are the examples MS uses, but that is because those are their bread and butter, not because that is all IIS knows.;)
Maybe for all articles we submit from now on, we should add, "And it all runs on Linux"
Or maybe be creative with these other suggestions.
"Only on Linux could such amazing technology be created"
"Linux is the only way this could have ever been possbile"
"And because this article is about one of the biggest discoveries every, we should note that the researcher might be using Linux for his research"
"Oh, did I mention Linux?"
"No they don't use Linux, that is why the Space Aliens landing are not news"
Be sure to add Linux in some way to everything you submit if you want it to make it on Slashdot. Even if Microsoft does something wonderful, just add. "but as soon as a Linux version is available it will be amazing, until then pretend it don't exist."/smile
If you think that those things you mention are impossible (or even just unlikely), then you haven't been paying attention to the way in which science continually reinvents the meaning of "impossible".
I never said they were impossible, the humor was that Linux was the only answer to acheiving them. Get it?
Zero Point Energy has massive potential, and is there and will be eventually harnessed. Wormholes are still possible in theory although the newer version of M theory tends to make them less likely to be a method of travel.
Everything is possible. I have even written papers on pattern key based encryption concepts that could advance compression beyond current theroretical limits. Even writing some preliminary key compression systems, but NOT on Linux.
The whole story became even MORE funny when the person that wrote the Slashdot blurb thought that it running on Linux was something that was at all relevant.
Advanced concepts of compression are not language dependant let alone OS dependant. Nor is the OS even relative, except to the (cough) poster of the article which apparently wanted everyone to see how 'wonderful' Linux is and thinks that there is a correlation to 'great advances in technology'.(cough)
They've alienated their Basic programmer base by forcing them to relearn the language.. AGAIN. None of the old asp pages can be copied and pasted into aspx. Is it really necessary to create registry keys for everything, such as form controls? This is why they're giving Visual Basic Express out for free.
Ok, you must not be a serious VB Programmer. The objection to VB6 to VB.NET was not learning a 'new language' as the changes were minimal. The objection was the Runtime distribution required for VB.NET was.NET instead of being distributing the VB 6 Runtimes. Also VB had finally moved created 'independant' applications without the need for the VB Runtime, and some developers really wanted that, and not to be tied back to a Runtime (.NET).
The part the VB Developers tend to forget or the reason it doesn't matter anymore is that 99% of the Windows installation ALREADY have.NET installed via MS Updates, SP2, etc. So the Runtime distribution of.NET is no longer the factor it was. With Vista this disappears as the.NET framework (runtime) is included in the OS on install.
So the changes were not 'vast' to the language, it was more about the runtime requirements and FORCING VB developers to use Managed Code.
The trick here is this. VB was NEVER a performance language, you couldn't easily drop to assembly level programing anyhow. And it was virtually 'managed code' all along, so this was not a major change or loss of performance, just a change in the dependant runtime/sandbox to.NET.
None of the old asp pages can be copied and pasted into aspx
This is NOT 100% true. Sure there 'can' be minor syntax changes, but there are ALSO pages that can run in ASP.NET and no programming changes are required to the native ASP page. So you are missing the differences here, there are many times ASP Pages can be put into an ASP.NET Application without modification.
Is it really necessary to create registry keys for everything, such as form controls?
Um, no it isn't who told you this was how Windows Program were written? The registry is for only the storage of centralized information, and has nothing to do with form control NOR should EVER be used to store constructs of your applications such as form controls. That is what is contained in the binaries of your application. PERIOD.
SQL Server Express IS a dedicated database server. You need to run it as a service. If you want to bundle a database to your app try to use an Access or sqlite file
You do realize that just because it runs as a 'service' has nothing to do with your assumptions that it cannot be deployed on a client machine.
Right?
For example, MYSQL also runs as a service, and can be deployed on a client machine also.
But the Slashdot Post says that is all runs on Linux. And knowing the infinite power of Linux, I believe them.
In addition to being the best OS in the world, Linux is also the most secure, does everything better than every other OS, and if given the right developers it is the ONLY os that could do something as impressive as compress data past the limits of possiblity.
I'm sure with the right developer, Linux could also be used to harness zero point energy, create wormholes for travel in your basement, and possibly cure most diseases.../wink
Win32 applications are completely at the mercy of the NT security model.
The *problem* is that most users run as Administrator, a user with a very high privilege level. This is a completely different thing to what you're talking about.
This is NOT completely different than what I am talking about, this is ONE aspect EXACTLY of what I am talking about. Go back and re-read, please.
I could detail 20 areas of examples of what I was talking about and running as Administrator is just ONE aspect of where the balance was tipped for compatibility of application in stead of forcing the NT security Model.
The NT Security Model specifically did NOT want users running as administrator. This was a BIG NO NO in the NT world, as the NT designers knew the risks. That is also why you 'used' to have to press CTRL-ALT-DEL to help circumvent any login password cracking tools.
The NT model WAS pretty solid, how it was maintained and concessions made in Win2K and XP is where the problems became a problem as it was put in the consumer base hands, and didn't require all the NT requirements for applications and user security. NT users prior to Win2k, didn't run as Administrator, we didn't leave our server running with an Administrator logged on, etc...
But there are many aspects of where MS screwed up for compatibility and the 'ease' of the consumers, where they should of broke applications and forced users to know and use the security in the native NT OS.
If you mean that rootkits/malware are a big of a threat, as common, or are even remotely possible to the average desktop OS X, Linux, Unix, or Windows system, then no.
Here mull this over, as Linux and OSX becomes more popular, do not hesitate to think that a rootkit like the 'Sony' rootkit would not be made for these OSes.
If Linux or OSX were as dominate or even a slight fraction more popular on the desktop, Sony would have put Rootkits on the Music CDs for both these OSes.
And yes, even through a CD, a rootkit can be installed on both of these OSes, so don't fool yourself.
So keep pointing out, sure Windows is the target, but it MAY NOT always be.
I come from the age when NT was immune to viruses because it was NOT popular, there were actually more Novell hacks, and other viruses were geared for Win 3.1 and Win95 and were NON-EXISTENT on NT. This is only 10 years ago.
So I do speak from some credible experience here...
Visual Basic is what Java would be like if Microsoft invented it. C# is what it would be like if they copied it.
Cute quote, but you do know MS did not invent Visual Basic, right? For its time it was a revolutionary conceptual product of IDE concepts, and the company that did invent it, was well paid, but by your quote, you are slapping that company and not MS.
find that I trust Linux for long term up time more than I do for windows.
This is pretty much a myth of the industry. From NT 4.0 days to now, Windows Servers are just as reliable for uptime as any other Server OS.
I see advantages to situations for running many different Server OSes, and Windows is always an option that works well in many environments, uptime with all of them is not a factor as they all pretty much are equal in one way or another.
One of our biggest clients in terms of servers, load, and traffic are all Windows 2003 Servers, and downtime is something that is scheduled, just like any other OS Server Farm for updates.
Take Care, and don't pick on Windows Server too much, it isn't 'that' evil. There are times it also has advantages, and if you are an honest IT consultant, you will recognize these times and be up front with your client.
(You wouldn't want to be like the Windows only IT people because that is all they know how to properly maintain or configure when it is NOT the right solution. I shake my head when I see this, I also shake my head when I see *nix people doing this when Windows is the best solution.)
This just goes to show that if you give MS enough time, they'll eventually be able to reinvent UNIX-like security. That's a relief.
Well, not 'reinvent', but actually 'force' applications and Win32 to adhere to the NT security model.
If MS would have forced applications to adhere to the NT security model of 1992, stuff like this would never have been a problem in the first place.
MS had security right with NT, they just gave up security for application compatibility by not forcing the Win32 subsystem and applications to adhere to the NT security model.
But if MS had broken applications and forced the NT security, people would have complained about that as well. So they were kind of screwed either way.
Just like now with Vista, there are apps that break because of the force of Security, also apps that perform horribly because they were designed and written very poorly (Quicktime is a prime example), but MS will probably write special compatibility handling for these applications so the market can't say MS designed Vista to break QuickTime.
But don't fool yourself, NT has had a very robust token security model from the day it was released in 1993, even surpassing the *nix model at the time.
If you read about the NT development process, security is a reason they avoided using a *nix base for NT, as they wanted a more robust architecture.
Sad MS stopped enforcing the NT model (starting with NT 4.0 and trying to be 'too' Win98 like with XP) and started letting applications and users have more access to the OS then ever should have been allowed. ALl this to keep closed system Win95 timeline 3rd party applications running.
MS should have been the security poster child, instead they are seen as the opposite because of their ill fated decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle on Linux?
Doesn't Linux have enough problems getting a foot in the door?
Partially kidding, but Oracle? Who in the Linux community wants to see Oracle running on Linux?
Oracle use to be quite grand but never evolved past the 'usability' model, mainly because they made so much money off of selling training. Virtually killing it for serious developers when interface and application independance became the norm for databases in the early 1990s.
Although they did learn to some degree and focused on the database technologies instead of trying to keep users locked into their usability patterns.
There are SO many database technologies I would choose on ANY scale project before Oracle. I guess I am a bit biased, but I also was trained and developed on Oracle for several years in the early 90s, and have been smacked around trying to make current Oracle technologies work in environments when IBM or MS and even MYSQL do things so must faster and easier.
I just don't see this as a big thing, except for the people that have bought the Oracle kool-aid and don't realize there are better solutions out there.
It would solve some of their security and stability problems,
Oh, if it were only that simple. Drop OSX on 50 million desktops and watch it crumble like the once mighty NT did...
I am curious about how this is a proof of concept virus if it has been done before surely the concept has already been proven?
Ok, this is exactly what I was thinking, but to add to it, apparently there are a lot of people out there that doesn't 'get' that code can easily infect more than one target technology.
Windows is even a proof of concept, as the early viruses infected Win9x but couldn't infect NT, this changed and later code was created that could infect either OS base.
Although the Windows example is easier to implement, but the potential for a virus to find common exploits and infect multiple OSes is not a hard thing to construct. Especially just the latter, a single binary that can cross infect OSes.
Taking a few tools I think of ways to create a replicating code segment that would propagate and function on Solaris, Linux, OpenBSD, OSX, and Windows. That is more that dual cross infection, that is covering most everything out there.
It would be naive for any OS user to ever feel their choice techology is above flaw or infection, especailly when social engineering works so well with under educated users to allow malicious access. Even as much fun is made of Windows, most infection in the last few years is from social tricks rather than inherent OS flaws.
Even Microsoft, don't forget...
Microsoft is a 'big' company, and even as much as we can dislike MS as a whole or things they do or have done, it is easy to forget that a LOT of strong minded tech people work there.
So when MS releases something of benefit it is a bit hard to stomach for a lot of people, but easy once we step back and remember that MS as a whole is comprised of many bright tech people that USE technology on a daily basis, and not even all the people at Microsoft are 'Windows' only people.
MS research is one area that is the most evident of tech minded people without the corporate controls, but good developers exists throughout MS so we can't expect everything they do to be wrong or evil. Look at it from a statistical view if nothing else.
So sure MS will put out selfless tools that help customers and computer users from time to time.
Having been a person that has watched MS for a long time, I remember days when they seemed to care about the little person and companies, and a shift in the mid 90s where that focus was lost. I remember when MS technologies were made and distributed for many OSes, not just Windows. From Media Player to IE, etc. These were free technologies that didn't fit the 'Windows' business model that Ballmer has made the central focus of the company, unfortunately.
The potential for this concept of business to return is there. Ballmer is a business person, not a true tech person, nor an innovative mind when it comes to technology. He is the face of the evil side of MS, and Bill G. giving control to him is the biggest mistake of MS history.
If I was going to paint the evil face of MS it would be Ballmer and his followers. I don't think Gates understands business enough to realize this, nor do I think he is inherently a business only person. His parents were very charitable and pushed for making peoples lives better. His failure is in not recognizing the evil aspects of business and the greed that is can create and is embodied in Ballmer.
So offtopic a bit, but the foundation of my views on this technology. Not everything at MS is evil and there still exist people there with the original 'empowering' concepts that flourished pre-Ballmer mindset and control. Gates use to wrangle him in, and for whatever reason stopped, and MS became the company they fought against for years at Ballmers control and advice.
So it is nice to see from time to time evidence that the non-Ballmer business model still does exist within MS, who knows, maybe there is hope for them to figure out the Ballmer and his followers mistakes and go back to a company that gives a crap.
Wow a computer from a major manufacturer? Let's see... Only several hundred of them, desktops, servers, laptops from Dell, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, Acer and others, since 1994
Ever look at a Dell driver CD? It's got hundreds of drivers, all named something like "902378346.exe" that don't tell you what they're for. You have to use their horrible little gui interface, and hope that the audio driver that you pick is for the hardware in your machine.
Ok, how about 'most' manufacturers?
The thing is, this is NOT new or unique or even a 'novel' concept. I have a Toshiba Laptop here with a single integrated install for Windows and Single install if you used another copy of Windows that just loads all their drivers.
BTW This is also an 'EFI' Toshiba laptop. Oh, and it is also 4 years old. And this is my under my hands 'literally' example of a major company that provides this level of support and ease to their users.
In the example I gave, when we owned a large OEM company, we even used the tools for Windows (provided by Microsoft) to slip our custom drivers into the Installation and Windows Setup CD shipped with the computers.
All the users had to do was 'install' Windows, and our drivers installed automatically and even our 'Settings' installed automatically, from branding the computer with our support numbers to even 'branding' IE to have our Logo and Company name instead of Internet Explorer, it even installed our Tech Support Shortcuts for the users.
If the user did not use our Windows CD to install Windows, They could run our 'single' setup installation to add all the drivers to their system, and even select if they wanted to 'exclude' drivers.
What Apple is doing is not any different or what people should focus on, it is nice, but not the reason to give kudos to Apple.
I'm not knocking Apple for any of this, although I think by them opening up their hardware to Windows, it will in the long run hurt OSX. Right now OSX isn't matching Windows for performance on the same hardware, not even with native applications, and the emulated application that have not been ported to Intel suffer even a higher performance hit.
I guess I was surprised that anyone would think the single driver installation was a 'new' or somehow wonderful thing.
From the above post and other posts, it seems some Mac users think that easy driver installation or availability is a hard thing in the Windows world. It isn't.
Sure there are companies that have messed up driver installation processes and even manufacturers that don't integrate the drivers, but this is a lack of the manufacturer, not an inherent inability or flaw in Windows. You just have a lot of hardware options in the Windows world, and not all companies are good about the quality of their drivers or their installation.
Take Care...
If you are going to bring up OS/2 at least try to get your facts straight. OS/2 failed because people stopped porting/writing OS/2 apps when they realized they could just write Windows apps and they would also run in OS/2. Dual booting is different.
Ok, that is what I said, the only difference is that you assume I don't get the fact the system is 'dual booting'. Please don't assume.
I agree that dual booting IS different, but the side effects ARE the same when dealing with large scale applications. Sure a business Application here or there, there is a difference, but gaming for one is an area that it would be comparable.
If you were a Large Gaming Developer, would you invest another 5 Million in making an OSX port, or just ensure it runs under Windows on Macs, and ask the users to boot to Windows mode?
Now facter in the Windows version has the full support of XNA technologies and will integrate with networking, sound and have better video performance than OpenGL on OSX will ever have.
Do you think these companies will EVER release the game for OSX? Probably Not.
This is very close to what happened with OS/2, no matter if they have reboot or not, that is a minimal difference, especially to the developers of large scale applications.
If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.
No. Because they would be running OSX, just like VirtualPC, as the OSX kernel is vastly different and cannot do subsystems like Windows NT can.
So this would be very much like existing OSX enviroments running an occasional Windows Application at sub-par performance. People are NOT going to run games or advanced CAD applications at 50% peformance if they can boot to Windows to run them at 100% speed.
Watch when you see Adobe Photoshop run faster under Windows than OSX, even a native OSX Intel version. This is where Apple is arrogant about a OSX having a performance edge, and it appears it DOES NOT. So if a Graphic Designer has a Mac/Intel and all his Adobe applications run 5-10% faster under Windows, do you really think this will help the success of OSX?
Also a funny thing to entertain, it would fairly easy for MS to license OSX, and create an x32 OSX subsystem for NT. As it is fully technically possible to do on the NT kernel WITHOUT emulation or virtualization and MS could run OSX applications at 'full speed' natively on the Windows NT architecture seamlessly with Windows applications. But again, that would be stupid for MS, based on the old OS/2 model and how it screws the main hosting OS, that is unless OSX on NT runs faster than OSX on its Darwin core.
OK, I will repeat this once again...
I have said this a lot on Slashdot, and usually it gets dismissed, but I will restate it.
Know your competition and DO NOT under estimate Microsoft.
This just shows that at least they 'get' this concept of knowing their competition. This also would demonstrate that Redmond is not blind to the advances in the Open Source world.
Not only are the using and learning from it, but all it would take is a bit of popularity to see a Linux subsystem for NT, like the already MS *nix subsystem shipping free for NT.
It's kinda cool that Apple can essentially release ONE drivers disk and be done with it. A lot has been said over the years about Apple's benefits of having known hardware...
This is how it works out with Windows. Here, have one installer. It will work on all our machines, and support everything in it. One Installshield script. It was the fastest WinXP or ANY Windows installs I've ever done.
You have to be kidding that THIS is the reason you are praising Apple?
Have you ever bought ANY 'name brand' Windows PC, ever?
From owning an OEM company starting back in 1997, all our systems always shipped with a simple and single install disk with all the drivers automated for anyone installing or reinstalling Windows.
Additionally, I haven't bought a computer in the last 8 years from ANY manufacturer that didn't include a reasonably well done 'single' driver installation process, or even having the drivers slipped into the Windows Installation itself on the OEM CD.
This is NOT new or even remotely unique or exciting.
There are other reasons to get excited about the dual boot (whether they are good or bad) but declaring how wonderful Apple is for doing what PC manufacters have done for years is insane...
This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...
Sure this may help their hardware sales, and it does offer this argument for the Apple community, "Why not buy an Apple, you can run Windows too?"
However, what this says to developers is what it said to them during OS/2 days, and why no 'native' good OS/2 ports of popular software existed. There was no need, it ran Windows just fine, so developers would just write a Windows version and expect OS/2 to run their application inside the Windows binaries.
The same could potentially happen for OSX and Apple. Especially in the games market. Why spend good money on an OSX port of your game if you assume most Mac users could just boot WindowsXP or Vista and run your game? Especially when Windows still has a video/performance margin over OSX technology for gaming.
The are two marginal ways this could benefit Apple.
1) Apple becames a major hardware vendor, and competes with Dell and Gateway, etc.
2) Users do start buying Macs to dual boot, and find they like OSX much better than Windows. (Unfortunately, as hard is this is to stomach for a lot of Slashdotters, this doesn't happen in the world as much as OSX proponents would like to believe.) Usually when users are forced or try to move fully to OSX they do it kicking and screaming and if they were comfortable in Windows, end up back there. (And yes, I have seen this in several companies, management gets on the buzz, flips over a department of 20 or 30 users to OSX, and the users end up forcing the return of Windows PCs - especailly in department that were once Mac dominated like graphic design but later moved all their users to Windows in the 90s. The Users have not always been so keen to move back to Mac when it is forced on them.)
So even if this does help Apple and Mac with marketshare, it will also become a contest of preferred usability between Vista and OSX, and I don't see OSX 'always' winning.
My personal opinion is that this will boost OSX and Mac sales initially, but in the long run will destroy OSX, and Apple will potentially just become another Dell or Gateway.
Which I do not think is such a good thing. Competition is a good thing.
Besides, like I said above this type of move certainly didn't work for OS/2, and not only from the developer perspective, users liked OS/2, but not 'enough' to purchase it and Windows to run Windows applications.
So will OSX be strong enough to keep users in OSX for the majority of use or just be a side booted OS, and people end up flipping to Windows for games and applications OSX doesn't yet have?
If people keep finding themselves flipping back to Windows, they will start spending more time in Windows, just to not have to reboot. And when this slide happens, OSX will not be the dominate OS even running on Apple Macs.
(Sure Windows runs on Macs already in VirtualPC, but there is big difference between running an emulator to 'get by' for some business applications, and booting into the full experience of Windows and running Windows games at high speed. And I think Apple is a little to arrogant on how good OSX is to think they will keep the market even on their own hardware.)
He had me at "Why do aspx pages have to be compiled with the Build feature in Visual Studio in order to work properly? How would I get an aspx page to function without Visual Studio .NET?"
I didn't even try to go there in my response. It was such a head shaker I didn't know what to do with it except go, uh? Or maybe explain that aspx files are text like asp or html and Visual Studio is not required to write text files.
I find stuff like this in posts that are borderline 'scary', especailly when people demonstrate they are using the technologies or have used them, and yet know so little about them in use and concept.
Take Care...
Truly no offense, but if these are really your questions, there is a lot more than syntax differences between ASP and ASP.NET that you do not get.
.NET uses, so this adds a whole new range and level of languages. In addition to ISAPI and other plug in methods for handling pages, which is how a lot of people work independantly in everything from PHP to Python. (Python also can be accessed directly from the .NET constructs as well, just you can Pascal and MANY other languages).
;)
Little things like VB is not ASP.NET or ASP.
Stricter Typing is an option of ASP.NET, but NOT required. Check your Server Development environment, but don't assume it is broken or significantly different.
ASP has also changed over the years and based on Server configuration commands like:
Form.Request("Name")
will break in newer version and you have to change the statement to just:
Request("Name")
This does not mean anything other than an evolving set of technologies, and the server configuration environment of which they are ran in.
Oh one more thing...
Why does IIS not have any support for Server Side languages other than js, vb, and cs
Who said it ONLY supports VB, C#, and JavaScript? IIS is VERY extensible and can handle anything
So whatever teacher told you IIS only supported VB, JS, or CS where either stupid or lying to you.
IIS itself didn't even 'inherently' support any native language, initial ASP and VB and JavaScript support was via ISAPI modules, just like PHP is handled today.
Truly spend some time looking this stuff up, don't even take my word for ANYTHING. Especially if you are limiting yourself to VB or C# because you think it is the ONLY support language IIS supports.
Also anyone reading this post, if you are in an IIS development situation and don't understand the extensibility offered by IIS, take time to find out for yourself, you are NOT locked into ANY language.
VB, JS, and CS are the examples MS uses, but that is because those are their bread and butter, not because that is all IIS knows.
Wow...
Ok, come on.. Do we really have to put.. "AND IT ALL RUNS ON LINUX" on every freaking article?
Humor aside, there is a point there, take it or leave...
I won't say "take care", as you apparently like to mock kindness and sincerity... Maybe it is something that exists outside your realm of reality.
Maybe for all articles we submit from now on, we should add, "And it all runs on Linux"
/smile
Or maybe be creative with these other suggestions.
"Only on Linux could such amazing technology be created"
"Linux is the only way this could have ever been possbile"
"And because this article is about one of the biggest discoveries every, we should note that the researcher might be using Linux for his research"
"Oh, did I mention Linux?"
"No they don't use Linux, that is why the Space Aliens landing are not news"
Be sure to add Linux in some way to everything you submit if you want it to make it on Slashdot. Even if Microsoft does something wonderful, just add. "but as soon as a Linux version is available it will be amazing, until then pretend it don't exist."
If you think that those things you mention are impossible (or even just unlikely), then you haven't been paying attention to the way in which science continually reinvents the meaning of "impossible".
I never said they were impossible, the humor was that Linux was the only answer to acheiving them. Get it?
Zero Point Energy has massive potential, and is there and will be eventually harnessed. Wormholes are still possible in theory although the newer version of M theory tends to make them less likely to be a method of travel.
Everything is possible. I have even written papers on pattern key based encryption concepts that could advance compression beyond current theroretical limits. Even writing some preliminary key compression systems, but NOT on Linux.
The whole story became even MORE funny when the person that wrote the Slashdot blurb thought that it running on Linux was something that was at all relevant.
Advanced concepts of compression are not language dependant let alone OS dependant. Nor is the OS even relative, except to the (cough) poster of the article which apparently wanted everyone to see how 'wonderful' Linux is and thinks that there is a correlation to 'great advances in technology'.(cough)
Take Care...
They've alienated their Basic programmer base by forcing them to relearn the language.. AGAIN. None of the old asp pages can be copied and pasted into aspx. Is it really necessary to create registry keys for everything, such as form controls? This is why they're giving Visual Basic Express out for free.
.NET instead of being distributing the VB 6 Runtimes. Also VB had finally moved created 'independant' applications without the need for the VB Runtime, and some developers really wanted that, and not to be tied back to a Runtime (.NET).
.NET installed via MS Updates, SP2, etc. So the Runtime distribution of .NET is no longer the factor it was. With Vista this disappears as the .NET framework (runtime) is included in the OS on install.
.NET.
Ok, you must not be a serious VB Programmer. The objection to VB6 to VB.NET was not learning a 'new language' as the changes were minimal. The objection was the Runtime distribution required for VB.NET was
The part the VB Developers tend to forget or the reason it doesn't matter anymore is that 99% of the Windows installation ALREADY have
So the changes were not 'vast' to the language, it was more about the runtime requirements and FORCING VB developers to use Managed Code.
The trick here is this. VB was NEVER a performance language, you couldn't easily drop to assembly level programing anyhow. And it was virtually 'managed code' all along, so this was not a major change or loss of performance, just a change in the dependant runtime/sandbox to
None of the old asp pages can be copied and pasted into aspx
This is NOT 100% true. Sure there 'can' be minor syntax changes, but there are ALSO pages that can run in ASP.NET and no programming changes are required to the native ASP page. So you are missing the differences here, there are many times ASP Pages can be put into an ASP.NET Application without modification.
Is it really necessary to create registry keys for everything, such as form controls?
Um, no it isn't who told you this was how Windows Program were written? The registry is for only the storage of centralized information, and has nothing to do with form control NOR should EVER be used to store constructs of your applications such as form controls. That is what is contained in the binaries of your application. PERIOD.
SQL Server Express IS a dedicated database server. You need to run it as a service. If you want to bundle a database to your app try to use an Access or sqlite file
You do realize that just because it runs as a 'service' has nothing to do with your assumptions that it cannot be deployed on a client machine.
Right?
For example, MYSQL also runs as a service, and can be deployed on a client machine also.
In other words, they're full of crap.
/wink
But the Slashdot Post says that is all runs on Linux. And knowing the infinite power of Linux, I believe them.
In addition to being the best OS in the world, Linux is also the most secure, does everything better than every other OS, and if given the right developers it is the ONLY os that could do something as impressive as compress data past the limits of possiblity.
I'm sure with the right developer, Linux could also be used to harness zero point energy, create wormholes for travel in your basement, and possibly cure most diseases...
Win32 applications are completely at the mercy of the NT security model.
The *problem* is that most users run as Administrator, a user with a very high privilege level. This is a completely different thing to what you're talking about.
This is NOT completely different than what I am talking about, this is ONE aspect EXACTLY of what I am talking about. Go back and re-read, please.
I could detail 20 areas of examples of what I was talking about and running as Administrator is just ONE aspect of where the balance was tipped for compatibility of application in stead of forcing the NT security Model.
The NT Security Model specifically did NOT want users running as administrator. This was a BIG NO NO in the NT world, as the NT designers knew the risks. That is also why you 'used' to have to press CTRL-ALT-DEL to help circumvent any login password cracking tools.
The NT model WAS pretty solid, how it was maintained and concessions made in Win2K and XP is where the problems became a problem as it was put in the consumer base hands, and didn't require all the NT requirements for applications and user security. NT users prior to Win2k, didn't run as Administrator, we didn't leave our server running with an Administrator logged on, etc...
But there are many aspects of where MS screwed up for compatibility and the 'ease' of the consumers, where they should of broke applications and forced users to know and use the security in the native NT OS.
If you mean that rootkits/malware are a big of a threat, as common, or are even remotely possible to the average desktop OS X, Linux, Unix, or Windows system, then no.
Here mull this over, as Linux and OSX becomes more popular, do not hesitate to think that a rootkit like the 'Sony' rootkit would not be made for these OSes.
If Linux or OSX were as dominate or even a slight fraction more popular on the desktop, Sony would have put Rootkits on the Music CDs for both these OSes.
And yes, even through a CD, a rootkit can be installed on both of these OSes, so don't fool yourself.
So keep pointing out, sure Windows is the target, but it MAY NOT always be.
I come from the age when NT was immune to viruses because it was NOT popular, there were actually more Novell hacks, and other viruses were geared for Win 3.1 and Win95 and were NON-EXISTENT on NT. This is only 10 years ago.
So I do speak from some credible experience here...
Ok, we really aren't that stupid are we?
After looking through all the posts... "Just swtich to Mac/OSX - switch to Linux - OpenBSD - NEXT - Solaris - etc etc etc..."
The Slashdot users, even the Mac Slashdot users realize that rookit technology and malware is NOT A WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM?
Sure Windows is the bulk of the target and sure Windows has security issues that make in the past especially make it more subject to being rootkited.
However everyone here is SMART enough to realize that this can affect ANY commercial or consumer level OS? Right?
It sounds fun to say, switch to OSX, but rootkit level of malware can affect OSX just as it can Solaris, Linux and Windows.
So have fun, but don't be stupid and buy into the myth that Windows is the only OS that can be affected like this.
Ok?
Visual Basic is what Java would be like if Microsoft invented it.
C# is what it would be like if they copied it.
Cute quote, but you do know MS did not invent Visual Basic, right? For its time it was a revolutionary conceptual product of IDE concepts, and the company that did invent it, was well paid, but by your quote, you are slapping that company and not MS.
find that I trust Linux for long term up time more than I do for windows.
This is pretty much a myth of the industry. From NT 4.0 days to now, Windows Servers are just as reliable for uptime as any other Server OS.
I see advantages to situations for running many different Server OSes, and Windows is always an option that works well in many environments, uptime with all of them is not a factor as they all pretty much are equal in one way or another.
One of our biggest clients in terms of servers, load, and traffic are all Windows 2003 Servers, and downtime is something that is scheduled, just like any other OS Server Farm for updates.
Take Care, and don't pick on Windows Server too much, it isn't 'that' evil. There are times it also has advantages, and if you are an honest IT consultant, you will recognize these times and be up front with your client.
(You wouldn't want to be like the Windows only IT people because that is all they know how to properly maintain or configure when it is NOT the right solution. I shake my head when I see this, I also shake my head when I see *nix people doing this when Windows is the best solution.)
This just goes to show that if you give MS enough time, they'll eventually be able to reinvent UNIX-like security. That's a relief.
Well, not 'reinvent', but actually 'force' applications and Win32 to adhere to the NT security model.
If MS would have forced applications to adhere to the NT security model of 1992, stuff like this would never have been a problem in the first place.
MS had security right with NT, they just gave up security for application compatibility by not forcing the Win32 subsystem and applications to adhere to the NT security model.
But if MS had broken applications and forced the NT security, people would have complained about that as well. So they were kind of screwed either way.
Just like now with Vista, there are apps that break because of the force of Security, also apps that perform horribly because they were designed and written very poorly (Quicktime is a prime example), but MS will probably write special compatibility handling for these applications so the market can't say MS designed Vista to break QuickTime.
But don't fool yourself, NT has had a very robust token security model from the day it was released in 1993, even surpassing the *nix model at the time.
If you read about the NT development process, security is a reason they avoided using a *nix base for NT, as they wanted a more robust architecture.
Sad MS stopped enforcing the NT model (starting with NT 4.0 and trying to be 'too' Win98 like with XP) and started letting applications and users have more access to the OS then ever should have been allowed. ALl this to keep closed system Win95 timeline 3rd party applications running.
MS should have been the security poster child, instead they are seen as the opposite because of their ill fated decisions.
Take Care...
I have a php on linux package there... are they moving away from these? Because if they are their going to lose my business.
Just curious, if you can't tell the difference on your end, why would you care?
Psst... PHP runs on Windows quite well...
Another story posted by people that don't get it...
How many of these stories a day are we now going to get?
IE7 replace IE6? WTF, That has always been possible.
Also Explorer uses the IE 'rendering' dlls, it doesn't use Internet Explorer.
There are so many things wrong with this post and story I don't even know where to start and won't.
If you don't get it, don't post it.