While you are correct that it sacrifices platform-independence
That's all I was trying to say... I am not discounting that.NET has its usefulness, but you'll notice I mentioned that it's only benefit will be to Microsoft applications. You reaffirmed by point by mentioning how you've applied it to Visual Studio.NET, SQL Server, Windows 2000, IE... No where did you mention products from non-Microsoft companies beside the open source Mozilla and variant Netscape.
That's my point,.NET primarily benefits Microsoft and no one else... Microsoft has had the opportunity to change that, and they won't.
NT also runs on IA64... Sure it runs on the IA64, but the Itanium has never been a market hit and like I said MS support has been flaky at best.
PowerPC in the X-Box 2... as far as I know, the X-Box has an adapted version of Windows as its OS... and being used in the X-Box doesn't subject it to the variety of real-world applications. In short, it's not *really* Windows, and anyways it's not sold separately to customers.
I'm sorry, but.NET is garbage - too much glitter and not enough of the important stuff like platform-independence. Microsoft may have succeeded in getting.NET firmly entrenched in the industry if people trusted them, but they've been playing the game since day one for dominance..NET will benefit Microsoft products, but I don't see it becoming a predominant force anywhere else.
The whole thing was a mistake for Microsoft, because they never really supported platforms outside the x86 architecture, and rarely code for other OSs (Office for Mac)..NET was Microsoft's attempt to fool the industry into thinking they were ready to embrace and extend open standards... but when it came down to it, they just weren't ready to take the risks to their existing monopoly.
well.. while commenting the code makes it a more readable implementation, it doesn't address the need for a system model which can be surprisingly useful to a new developer or just someone evaluating the operating system for a given application. I agree this would be incredibly complex, but not impossible
While UML is better suited to OO designs, it does provide facilities (activity diagrams) for designing algorithms in say C or Pascal and for describing system interaction with external components (sequence diagrams). However, UML is particularly directed at OO development and using it to develop software in non-OO languages requires a bit of a hack.
One facility I think is particularly absent from UML is modelling of error conditions. In most cases it's awkward to indicate that an error might exist and how to handle it if does occur. Also, UML notation seems incredibly basic (gulp!) and simply can't tackle algorithmic modelling for complex applications like memory management or software interrupt handling in an operating system.
If not already underway, the open source community should step forward and come up with a more advanced alternative to UML and then perhaps demonstrate its usefulness by applying it to a complete modelling of say.. oh.. umm... Linux;)
I got this news from my 88 year old Grandmother today before it was posted on Slashdot. Oh well so much for getting the tech news fast on a holiday weekend.
No that just means your grandma is a Slashdot subscriber.
is just pure speculation. I think it's foolish to think that Google can translate their "limitless" (ya sure) computing power into actual revenue. This essentially boils down to whether people are willing to give up the freedom they have storing and managing their data on their PC. Remember.NET;)
There is limited demand for web services today and I don't see this demand growing in the near future. There's only so much one can do in a web browser before you're better off working locally. Things like client-side ActiveX and Java, while supposedly making web services a reality, are slow, bulky, ugly and difficult to use.
Besides their foray into email (essentially nothing new), Google will find little potential for growth in their product line. I think the company should stick to improving their search technology by getting access to more data sources and making their results more relevant (there is still much work to be done!)... that's if they want to be dominant player 5 years from now.
AMD will have the last laugh here. Turns out they embedded a Pink Floyd album in the code of AMD64 (a fair-use copy, as AMD had previously purchased the album).
Yep, Intel sure suffered A Momentary Lapse of Reason.
10:30:18 User in vehicle. 10:31:12 450 gram bag "Chee-tos" consumed. 10:42:12 User enters parking lot. 10:43:01 User parks, spot "reserved: George Lucas"
Great, not only is user a slob... he's also obsessed with George Lucas
Point taken. I think software vending machines are the last place we want Linux to be marketed. It'd be a big mistake to have a home user pop in a Linux cd thinking he's going to be dealing with something as easy to use as Windows.
Most of the time in this game, you only get one chance - first impressions count for a lot. If the distros alienate the home user by making themselves out to be something they are not... Linux will never go mainstream.
I find the average user right now has little or no clue what Linux is. They've heard about it on the news, maybe heard about it from the neighborhood hacker, but that's about it. I think the general public's indifference to Linux is advantageous. When the time is right and the Linux desktop and Linux connectivity is sufficiently ready to compete with Windows' easy-of-use, the community will uncover something that is a viable home user solution on the desktop. But right now, Linux is no Coca-Cola.
My fear then, is this: will you be the only one who can search through your database of email, "I guess forever"? Or will Google be able to search it too. Or even if they lock themselves out of search or reading your email directly, will Google, as they do now for web searches, keep a log of the searches you make on your own email?
You're more paranoid than Fox Mulder! Dude, unless you're a double agent... take a chill pill relax and use your GMail to keep in touch with family and friends.
Of course, if you'r stock is worth a few billion dollars, the cost of hardware is 'almost free':)
Hence, when your stock is worth upwards of forty billion... uh ya it's free!
Re:Throwing away information
on
X-43A Hits Mach 7
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The airframe could yield an awful lot of information
The simulations are probably more precise than getting your hands on the aircraft after flight. In fact, the simulations would not take into account other non-flight stress like hitting the water from that altitude;)
Slashdot Mirror
sorry I read PeneTrode
They say it's only limited because of Windows' non-cached memory allocator, not something they imposed. Anyone care to elaborate on how/why that is?
That's all I was trying to say... I am not discounting that .NET has its usefulness, but you'll notice I mentioned that it's only benefit will be to Microsoft applications. You reaffirmed by point by mentioning how you've applied it to Visual Studio .NET, SQL Server, Windows 2000, IE... No where did you mention products from non-Microsoft companies beside the open source Mozilla and variant Netscape.
That's my point, .NET primarily benefits Microsoft and no one else... Microsoft has had the opportunity to change that, and they won't.
PowerPC in the X-Box 2... as far as I know, the X-Box has an adapted version of Windows as its OS... and being used in the X-Box doesn't subject it to the variety of real-world applications. In short, it's not *really* Windows, and anyways it's not sold separately to customers.
The whole thing was a mistake for Microsoft, because they never really supported platforms outside the x86 architecture, and rarely code for other OSs (Office for Mac). .NET was Microsoft's attempt to fool the industry into thinking they were ready to embrace and extend open standards... but when it came down to it, they just weren't ready to take the risks to their existing monopoly.
well.. while commenting the code makes it a more readable implementation, it doesn't address the need for a system model which can be surprisingly useful to a new developer or just someone evaluating the operating system for a given application. I agree this would be incredibly complex, but not impossible
One facility I think is particularly absent from UML is modelling of error conditions. In most cases it's awkward to indicate that an error might exist and how to handle it if does occur. Also, UML notation seems incredibly basic (gulp!) and simply can't tackle algorithmic modelling for complex applications like memory management or software interrupt handling in an operating system.
If not already underway, the open source community should step forward and come up with a more advanced alternative to UML and then perhaps demonstrate its usefulness by applying it to a complete modelling of say.. oh.. umm... Linux ;)
No that just means your grandma is a Slashdot subscriber.
Don't you mean GNUgle/Linux.
Sorry had to say it ;) Hey if not me, someone else!
There is limited demand for web services today and I don't see this demand growing in the near future. There's only so much one can do in a web browser before you're better off working locally. Things like client-side ActiveX and Java, while supposedly making web services a reality, are slow, bulky, ugly and difficult to use.
Besides their foray into email (essentially nothing new), Google will find little potential for growth in their product line. I think the company should stick to improving their search technology by getting access to more data sources and making their results more relevant (there is still much work to be done!)... that's if they want to be dominant player 5 years from now.
Yep, Intel sure suffered A Momentary Lapse of Reason.
Glad you found your bed buddy. Nothing to see here people... move along.
Great, not only is user a slob... he's also obsessed with George Lucas
You've not seen anything... till you see a guy with one knee, gas coming out of his foot, stabbed by a flute, passing away on the shoulder.
The man says you gotta be able to sing... what part of that do you not understand?
This same crap was posted anonymous last October. If his business doesn't go under, at least he can look forward to dying of monotony.
Most of the time in this game, you only get one chance - first impressions count for a lot. If the distros alienate the home user by making themselves out to be something they are not... Linux will never go mainstream.
I find the average user right now has little or no clue what Linux is. They've heard about it on the news, maybe heard about it from the neighborhood hacker, but that's about it. I think the general public's indifference to Linux is advantageous. When the time is right and the Linux desktop and Linux connectivity is sufficiently ready to compete with Windows' easy-of-use, the community will uncover something that is a viable home user solution on the desktop. But right now, Linux is no Coca-Cola.
You're more paranoid than Fox Mulder! Dude, unless you're a double agent... take a chill pill relax and use your GMail to keep in touch with family and friends.
Vaporware. P (it's the kind of April Fool's joke that pops up year-round)
Hence, when your stock is worth upwards of forty billion... uh ya it's free!
The simulations are probably more precise than getting your hands on the aircraft after flight. In fact, the simulations would not take into account other non-flight stress like hitting the water from that altitude ;)
Nuff said!
Been there... done that. It's called fvwm and it's the only way to fly!
SCO is either incredibly smart... or incredibly stupid.
These dudes travel faster than the speed of light. So in there universe, this would be possible.