Don't forget that a huge installed base does not imply technical superiority (as we all well know with the case of Internet Explorer). So this is more like one of the chief Windows architects jumping ship to go work on Linux, and being given a salary that exceeds the GDP of many small countries.
Speaking of Yahoo, is anyone else afraid that Google will turn into Yahoo if they keep adding services?
Every time they come out with something new, everyone says "oh cool, i'll use that!" But look at Yahoo's homepage after ten years of that business. I'm sure there are some good services in there, but it's hard to find them among all the... other good services.
It has been said a zilion times and I'll say it again because some still ignore the difference between these levels of abstractions.
WikiPedia is not the same as wiki. WikiPedia is a wiki. The only thing that can be called Wiki (with a capital W) is WikiWikiWeb, the original wiki.
Microsoft rewrites Windows, ejects the old API but keeps.Net compatibility. (it's a thin wrapper after all)
I don't have to rewrite my application (not even recompile it), while MS can fix their low-level API.
Aaah, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "thin wrapper". Thin wrapper means that it closely resembles the underlying API. In order to replace the underlying API seamlessly, you would need to have a "thick wrapper".
That is probably true of the first version of.NET. With the second version, generics are introduced. Java generics are a laughable attempt at reducing typecasts - they do not enable generic programming..NET generics are also leave a lot to be desired, but they go far beyond what is possible with the JVM.
You are wrong on one critical point though. Java is not open. C# and the CLR are. They are ECMA standards.
I agree that you can make pure applications in.NET, if you just restrict yourself. And when I write.NET applications, that is exactly what I do.
However, for comparison, it can also be said that you can write purely functional programs in C - you just have to restrict yourself from using side-effects.
The fact is, COM/Win32 will never be completely removed from.NET, in the same way that side-effects can never be removed from C. They are built into the CLR. The metadata formats have specific constants to refer to COM activity.
They also don't seem to be even the slightest bit ashamed of the COM/Win32 heritage. This is apparent when you create a new console project in Visual Studio. Among the 10 or so lines of boilerplate code (just a definition of Main), there is the [STAThread] attribute staring you in the face.
Yes, COM and Win32 ugliness do show through in.NET. However, they couldn't have done it any other way. Remember when.NET came out any every single windows programmer was bitching and moaning about having to re-learn and re-implement everything? Imagine how many times worse that would have been without backwards compatibility. To make things "just work" in a backwards compatible way, some of the ugliness had to show through. All abstractions leak.
It is unfortunate, but there is no other way it would have got off the ground. Presumably COM and Win32 stuff can be phased out in the future. The warts will always be there, but these things are used in the real world of business computing, not some totally pure abstraction wet dream world.
You should check out my new language, "Braindead". Every program is exactly one character long! Of course, some people complain that they have trouble finding which of the +Inf characters to use, but that's a different problem.
I wonder if there will ever be enough bounty's on offer to make a career out of it.
Not at $100 or $200 a pop, notta chance. I think these are mostly to encourage the existing gnome hackers to attack some less-than-glamorous problems they would rather not do normally. I doubt we'll ever see a wild wild west bounty hunter who just roams around between vastly different projects. If the improvements were that easy to make, someone already on the team would just make them instead of giving up money. If they aren't that easy, like these, then you wouldn't be able to solve enough of them to pay your rent.
Try hitting refresh once the page is loaded. The key seems to be the first line in the returned HTML, which is a script tag that points to http://www.hostultra.com/root/hostultra.php.
Yea, I considered doing that, but I figured that for this popup issue I would be one of about 10,000 people trying to submit the same bug.. maybe I'm wrong. If I came across a more obscure bug I would definitely submit it.
Gee wiz, thanks for the education, stewby18. It may be a sleazy tactic, but it is effective. It has nothing to do with ego or misinformation - it has to do with protecting people from their own laziness. Some people don't care enough to remember simple things about protecting themselves.
You aren't very bright. The bank line was just to get me to recite the instructions for bypassing Firefox (note, it hasn't been called "Firebird" in quite some time). So no, this isn't "gorilla" (sic) tactics.
The "look" and "feel" will become out of sync if you do that. For example, IE's toolbars have little gripper visuals on the left-hand side. You can grab those with your mouse and rearrange the toolbars. You could reproduce the visual on Firefox, but that would be kinda lame considering they wouldn't be functional. That said, good luck and let me know if you find one... I could use it too.
When it's an office, I would expect that most non-tech people would refuse to change things. Probably for good reason too - you should talk to the head of your IT dept first, and get him to implement a company-wide policy about Firefox being required or at least optional. Then let the IT dept field questions from the dumbfounded users. Once it's "official", you can evangelize with confidence!
I read far enough to see their definition of "cold start" means "log out then back in". If they think that clears the disk cache, they are pretty confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that a huge installed base does not imply technical superiority (as we all well know with the case of Internet Explorer).
So this is more like one of the chief Windows architects jumping ship to go work on Linux, and being given a salary that exceeds the GDP of many small countries.
Every time they come out with something new, everyone says "oh cool, i'll use that!" But look at Yahoo's homepage after ten years of that business. I'm sure there are some good services in there, but it's hard to find them among all the ... other good services.
It has been said a zilion times and I'll say it again because some still ignore the difference between these levels of abstractions.
WikiPedia is not the same as wiki. WikiPedia is a wiki. The only thing that can be called Wiki (with a capital W) is WikiWikiWeb, the original wiki.
WinFs isn't really a file system - it's more of a indexing service and namespace. It still runs NTFS under the hood.
How close is Mount St. Helens to Redmond?
You are wrong on one critical point though. Java is not open. C# and the CLR are. They are ECMA standards.
However, for comparison, it can also be said that you can write purely functional programs in C - you just have to restrict yourself from using side-effects.
The fact is, COM/Win32 will never be completely removed from .NET, in the same way that side-effects can never be removed from C. They are built into the CLR. The metadata formats have specific constants to refer to COM activity.
They also don't seem to be even the slightest bit ashamed of the COM/Win32 heritage. This is apparent when you create a new console project in Visual Studio. Among the 10 or so lines of boilerplate code (just a definition of Main), there is the [STAThread] attribute staring you in the face.
It is unfortunate, but there is no other way it would have got off the ground. Presumably COM and Win32 stuff can be phased out in the future. The warts will always be there, but these things are used in the real world of business computing, not some totally pure abstraction wet dream world.
You should check out my new language, "Braindead". Every program is exactly one character long! Of course, some people complain that they have trouble finding which of the +Inf characters to use, but that's a different problem.
Holy crap where do you live for $200/month?
Not at $100 or $200 a pop, notta chance. I think these are mostly to encourage the existing gnome hackers to attack some less-than-glamorous problems they would rather not do normally. I doubt we'll ever see a wild wild west bounty hunter who just roams around between vastly different projects. If the improvements were that easy to make, someone already on the team would just make them instead of giving up money. If they aren't that easy, like these, then you wouldn't be able to solve enough of them to pay your rent.
See my post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140817&cid=118 00620.
That's one of the first things I do when I install Firefox... sorry, looks like this is the real deal - someone found a hole in the popup blocker. See my post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140817&cid=118 00620.
Try hitting refresh once the page is loaded. The key seems to be the first line in the returned HTML, which is a script tag that points to http://www.hostultra.com/root/hostultra.php.
I didn't keep track of the ones that bit me, but a quick google turns up this one: http://www.hostultra.com/~charmedonline/powerofthr ee.htm.
Hah. You sure told him! Good show, asshat!
Yea, I considered doing that, but I figured that for this popup issue I would be one of about 10,000 people trying to submit the same bug.. maybe I'm wrong. If I came across a more obscure bug I would definitely submit it.
Gee wiz, thanks for the education, stewby18. It may be a sleazy tactic, but it is effective. It has nothing to do with ego or misinformation - it has to do with protecting people from their own laziness. Some people don't care enough to remember simple things about protecting themselves.
You aren't very bright. The bank line was just to get me to recite the instructions for bypassing Firefox (note, it hasn't been called "Firebird" in quite some time). So no, this isn't "gorilla" (sic) tactics.
And apparently you don't understand it either. No operating system I've heard of has per-user disk cache.
The "look" and "feel" will become out of sync if you do that. For example, IE's toolbars have little gripper visuals on the left-hand side. You can grab those with your mouse and rearrange the toolbars. You could reproduce the visual on Firefox, but that would be kinda lame considering they wouldn't be functional. That said, good luck and let me know if you find one... I could use it too.
When it's an office, I would expect that most non-tech people would refuse to change things. Probably for good reason too - you should talk to the head of your IT dept first, and get him to implement a company-wide policy about Firefox being required or at least optional. Then let the IT dept field questions from the dumbfounded users. Once it's "official", you can evangelize with confidence!
I read far enough to see their definition of "cold start" means "log out then back in". If they think that clears the disk cache, they are pretty confused.
I've seen that also when starting a download. I agree that it must be waiting on a response from the website.