yeah, right up to the point where your monitor dies and you can't buy a new one because they require windows style drm support in the OS to function. Same with your keyboard, mouse, printer, etc.
"Also, one can add all sorts of other OSes to the bunch that are less stable than Windows 2000. Any version of MacOS prior to version 10. The Amiga OSes. OS/2. Trying to make the claim 'it's because of Microsoft' is short sighted and shows a streak of zeal."
A couple of MacOS versions may fit suit but in general that's not true. MacOS has always been more solid than windows. Bloated as hell but stable. The AmigaOS's and OS/2 certainly are.
And yes it is because of the programming practices and policies in redmond that windows is unstable.
Except that we have to win this war before the next version of windows comes out with it's DRM. Once that becomes widespread and hardware manufacturers jump onboard it's over my friend. We don't have a decade, we have about 5yrs. If linux doesn't have at least a 30-40% desktop marketshare by then it will die for everything but EXTREMELY high end servers (like IBM's) and embedded work.
The middle ground won't be willing to do the search they need to find a linux guru (linux based homes and grade schools will breed linux admins, like windows based do now). And home users certainly won't.
Why on earth would anyone praise wine for supporting the creation of windows binaries? The world would be a better place without windows binaries. Do something useful, stop compiling windows binaries and compile linux binaries on your linux box.
Well, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger I guess. If this comes to any popularity I see some internal hardening of the kernel on the rise. Instead of hardening from without, it will be hardened to protect against malicious code within, in the form of modules or possibly even statically compiled drivers.
yes but this is largely in part to the efficient ways linux handles hardware... this is like axing the root of an oak tree, numerous times a second.
The question isn't really whether unstable drivers statically or dynamically loaded into kernel space will shake the tree, but whether or not any nuts will fall when they do.
I take it your merely comparing it with other versions of windows then? Compared to other MS operating systems (including XP) win2k running the latest service pack is clearly the most stable of the bunch. Compared to non-ms operating systems it doesn't even come close to the bar.
perhaps portions of alot of drivers run in user mode, like those for software modems, but I know for a fact that I statically compile ALL my drivers into the kernel or as modules (once loaded in they might as well be statically compiled). Since the drivers are the BULK of the in memory kernel, I'd suspect they are running kernel mode.
Do you think if you REALLY told your boss that you were an expert at programming in "Visual BEGINNER'S All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code", that he'd consider you an expert for long?
Someone else replied to you with alot of the technical reasons. But if you remember vb was meant for home user scripting of the GUI. It was initially released as a counterpart to Applescript... not to real enterprise and systems level languages.
VB was the followup to qbasic. vb is just a gui upgrade to qbasic and let's not forget what basic stands for "Beginners All purpose Symbolic Instruction Code". Basic is a language designed to be used by those wanting to learn programming concepts, it was NEVER intended for production use. The only reason vb started being touted as a REAL programming language is because lots of lazy programmers and wanna programmers who couldn't figure out C started writting applications in it.
ok, windows bug is reported (wait 3months), someone in the know gets an interview published in which he mentions the bug (wait a month), patch is released.
now, linux security bug is reported (wait 3hrs), most people already have the patch.
That's because your getting your information from microsoft's notices that they found bugs. You need better information sources. Also I've generally found that most fixes to open source security holes come within 2hrs.
There are itanium clusters, they don't even begin to compete. That's the whole point. finally someone with a few bucks is realizing those macs have dirt cheap fast RISC processors that blow away x86 clones. Of course they dumped the bloated macos and installed linux, again as I've said should be done all along;)
Remember, simply doing something which is already common on a new medium SHOULDN'T justify a patent. For instance online auction patents, almost all of them have a real world counterpart that has existed for centuries, and therefore there is nothing about them that should be patentable. There really isn't any room for a revolutionizing patent in online auctions.
Taking two existing ideas and combining them into one should be a no go as well. Storing of preferences FAR predates computers, hotels and retail stores for instance have been doing this for aa couple centuries, and long before that human beings did so simply by remembering each others favorites foods etc. This is obviously not patentable. A patent should require something NEW that will eventually be returned to the full public domain that would be the default if patent law didn't exist as a compromise.
Since software is typically just an automation of already existing things there isn't much in terms of software that should be patentable even if you do believe software should be. And it shouldn't... the software itself is rightly covered under copyright, and ideas were never supposed to be patentable in themselves (if I remember correctly the inventor used to actually have to provide a physical functional copy of the invention! These filled huge warehouses before this was stopped).
actually your wrong, the original code will compile fine in most compilers, since the braces which are missing are implicit, it's simply a quickie while loop that increases the value in a double, the bracing in the original code is exactly as it should be.
it initializes the variable, declares a while loop which only accomplishes the autoincrement, looping until it reaches the proper value. Then when finished with the while loop it exits with a return value of zero, the return statement is not part of nor has any relation whatsoever to the while loop.
"the power users who use Office's cross-app features are probably only 30-40%"
*cough* 5% *cough*
You seriously overrate the average office user. Most of them are still struggling with the mouse. And very rare indeed is the user who knows keystroke commands, that alone I'd say is far less than your 30-40% mark. Actually moving data between the office apps (beyond cut and paste) is WAAAY beyond 95% of office users easily.
P.S. You can import/export to/from most types of databases from OO. Just not MS Access.
lol true true, the first obviously was an error due to typing too fast. The second was simply breaking the steps down so it would be clear enough for him.
We wouldn't want to go too fast now, just one concept at a time.
yes I imagine in this way a particular "performance" would legitimately copyrightable. There are more components then I initially stated it's true.
However, the same mix, of the same song, from the same recording, = ONE copyright, recorded onto a cassete tape, those big black round things, a cd, or an mp3 is ALL the same license. It's the same recording, it's the recording to which they hold copyright, not the recording on x media.
"Red Hat 9 had 43 security vulnerabilities reported and patched in the first 150 days after it shipped."
Zero of which were in the operating system which is part of the red hat distribution. 43 patches in literally HUNDREDS of programs that are included with redhat linux 9. Windows has, lets see, the OS (of which they assure us the browser is part), 1 email app, 1 media player. oh yeah, and notepad (I'll give, I think notepad is a shining proof of concept that microsoft can write a secure and stable app if they just neglect to provide even the most basic of features!).
Of those, ALL of them with the exception of notepad were released with NUMEROUS serious vulnerabilities, none of which were fixed within 1 week of being reported to microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, right up to the point where your monitor dies and you can't buy a new one because they require windows style drm support in the OS to function. Same with your keyboard, mouse, printer, etc.
"Also, one can add all sorts of other OSes to the bunch that are less stable than Windows 2000. Any version of MacOS prior to version 10. The Amiga OSes. OS/2. Trying to make the claim 'it's because of Microsoft' is short sighted and shows a streak of zeal."
A couple of MacOS versions may fit suit but in general that's not true. MacOS has always been more solid than windows. Bloated as hell but stable. The AmigaOS's and OS/2 certainly are.
And yes it is because of the programming practices and policies in redmond that windows is unstable.
Except that we have to win this war before the next version of windows comes out with it's DRM. Once that becomes widespread and hardware manufacturers jump onboard it's over my friend. We don't have a decade, we have about 5yrs. If linux doesn't have at least a 30-40% desktop marketshare by then it will die for everything but EXTREMELY high end servers (like IBM's) and embedded work.
The middle ground won't be willing to do the search they need to find a linux guru (linux based homes and grade schools will breed linux admins, like windows based do now). And home users certainly won't.
Why on earth would anyone praise wine for supporting the creation of windows binaries? The world would be a better place without windows binaries. Do something useful, stop compiling windows binaries and compile linux binaries on your linux box.
Well, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger I guess. If this comes to any popularity I see some internal hardening of the kernel on the rise. Instead of hardening from without, it will be hardened to protect against malicious code within, in the form of modules or possibly even statically compiled drivers.
yes but this is largely in part to the efficient ways linux handles hardware... this is like axing the root of an oak tree, numerous times a second.
The question isn't really whether unstable drivers statically or dynamically loaded into kernel space will shake the tree, but whether or not any nuts will fall when they do.
I take it your merely comparing it with other versions of windows then? Compared to other MS operating systems (including XP) win2k running the latest service pack is clearly the most stable of the bunch. Compared to non-ms operating systems it doesn't even come close to the bar.
perhaps portions of alot of drivers run in user mode, like those for software modems, but I know for a fact that I statically compile ALL my drivers into the kernel or as modules (once loaded in they might as well be statically compiled). Since the drivers are the BULK of the in memory kernel, I'd suspect they are running kernel mode.
Do you think if you REALLY told your boss that you were an expert at programming in "Visual BEGINNER'S All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code", that he'd consider you an expert for long?
"Huh... ? I see a .shtml. Sure that this file was generated by some perl script, but i can do the same with almost any other language..."
not I, I see http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?(lots of crap being passed to the script)
Not sure what url your looking at.
Someone else replied to you with alot of the technical reasons. But if you remember vb was meant for home user scripting of the GUI. It was initially released as a counterpart to Applescript... not to real enterprise and systems level languages.
VB was the followup to qbasic. vb is just a gui upgrade to qbasic and let's not forget what basic stands for "Beginners All purpose Symbolic Instruction Code". Basic is a language designed to be used by those wanting to learn programming concepts, it was NEVER intended for production use. The only reason vb started being touted as a REAL programming language is because lots of lazy programmers and wanna programmers who couldn't figure out C started writting applications in it.
ok, windows bug is reported (wait 3months), someone in the know gets an interview published in which he mentions the bug (wait a month), patch is released.
now, linux security bug is reported (wait 3hrs), most people already have the patch.
That's because your getting your information from microsoft's notices that they found bugs. You need better information sources. Also I've generally found that most fixes to open source security holes come within 2hrs.
I was actually refering to the opteron's he mentioned. The itanium however is NOT a risc chip, so my point applies to it as well.
According to the article in which they first announced they had built it, it's running linux, not MACOSX
There are itanium clusters, they don't even begin to compete. That's the whole point. finally someone with a few bucks is realizing those macs have dirt cheap fast RISC processors that blow away x86 clones. Of course they dumped the bloated macos and installed linux, again as I've said should be done all along ;)
This was the original code, and yes it compiles and executes properly.
int main(int argc, char *argv)
{
double i=0;
while ( i++ != 0xFFFFFFFF);
return 0;
}
Remember, simply doing something which is already common on a new medium SHOULDN'T justify a patent. For instance online auction patents, almost all of them have a real world counterpart that has existed for centuries, and therefore there is nothing about them that should be patentable. There really isn't any room for a revolutionizing patent in online auctions.
Taking two existing ideas and combining them into one should be a no go as well. Storing of preferences FAR predates computers, hotels and retail stores for instance have been doing this for aa couple centuries, and long before that human beings did so simply by remembering each others favorites foods etc. This is obviously not patentable. A patent should require something NEW that will eventually be returned to the full public domain that would be the default if patent law didn't exist as a compromise.
Since software is typically just an automation of already existing things there isn't much in terms of software that should be patentable even if you do believe software should be. And it shouldn't... the software itself is rightly covered under copyright, and ideas were never supposed to be patentable in themselves (if I remember correctly the inventor used to actually have to provide a physical functional copy of the invention! These filled huge warehouses before this was stopped).
actually your wrong, the original code will compile fine in most compilers, since the braces which are missing are implicit, it's simply a quickie while loop that increases the value in a double, the bracing in the original code is exactly as it should be.
it initializes the variable, declares a while loop which only accomplishes the autoincrement, looping until it reaches the proper value. Then when finished with the while loop it exits with a return value of zero, the return statement is not part of nor has any relation whatsoever to the while loop.
"the power users who use Office's cross-app features are probably only 30-40%"
*cough* 5% *cough*
You seriously overrate the average office user. Most of them are still struggling with the mouse. And very rare indeed is the user who knows keystroke commands, that alone I'd say is far less than your 30-40% mark. Actually moving data between the office apps (beyond cut and paste) is WAAAY beyond 95% of office users easily.
P.S. You can import/export to/from most types of databases from OO. Just not MS Access.
first of all, that quote pertains to AT&T, second of all sco gave 1 week notice, not two months.
lol true true, the first obviously was an error due to typing too fast. The second was simply breaking the steps down so it would be clear enough for him.
We wouldn't want to go too fast now, just one concept at a time.
yes it has bugs, but I don't recall any SECURITY breeches resulting specifically from the use of notepad... yet.
yes I imagine in this way a particular "performance" would legitimately copyrightable. There are more components then I initially stated it's true.
However, the same mix, of the same song, from the same recording, = ONE copyright, recorded onto a cassete tape, those big black round things, a cd, or an mp3 is ALL the same license. It's the same recording, it's the recording to which they hold copyright, not the recording on x media.
"Red Hat 9 had 43 security vulnerabilities reported and patched in the first 150 days after it shipped."
Zero of which were in the operating system which is part of the red hat distribution. 43 patches in literally HUNDREDS of programs that are included with redhat linux 9. Windows has, lets see, the OS (of which they assure us the browser is part), 1 email app, 1 media player. oh yeah, and notepad (I'll give, I think notepad is a shining proof of concept that microsoft can write a secure and stable app if they just neglect to provide even the most basic of features!).
Of those, ALL of them with the exception of notepad were released with NUMEROUS serious vulnerabilities, none of which were fixed within 1 week of being reported to microsoft.