Well how this: The Visual Component Framework
This is being developed as a cross platform framework (very siilar in features to Qt), but it is begin done on Win32 first, and then ported to OSX. And it's OSS, in that it's a BSD license.
You're kidding aren't you?
Because if you're not, that's a pretty damning accusation (one at which I would *happily* smirk at if it were true:)). If you're able to prove this, why not submit this information to one of the major bug tracking sites (or wherever), maybe this would induce more public humilitation for Microsoft so it's fixed sooner.
Hey, it's possible! I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Now if he had gone off on some crazed "we-did-it-in-the-back-room-storage-closet-with
-her-three-best-friends" story then I might be inclined to call "bullshit".
Will people still visit porn sites if their employers knew what sites they visit?
That's an interesting question. I wonder how many people actually download/view porn at work. I have certainly viewed/downloaded porn, but never at work, too worried about getting caught and getting fired.
The article mentions that iPods sell for around 550 euros or around $677 USD. That seems *awfully* expensive for an MP3 player. Is this just an anomaly for the iPod, or are computer prices in general quite high in France?
You've apparently not used Win2k (this may also apply to Win98 and/or WInXP).
If you use the common open or save dialogs (note that MS Office may or may not use these, I don't recall, but just about every other app out there *does*), you can type the first couple of letters of a file/directory name, and if it's in the directory, a dropdown box will appear, with a list of possible matches that you can use the Up or Down arrows keys to select. Just about as easy as using the tab completion in bash, and you *don't* need to use a mouse at all.
I think it more likely that Lindows will be sent to the doghouse.
We could only be so lucky!
Michael Roberts would have a field day with this. As much as I think the guys is sort of a goof, I'd love to see this happen. The potential comedy factor alone would be well worth it.
I'm all for the concept of a super easy to use/set up linux distro. He had me on board with the idea of trying to compete with Windows in terms of getting it installed on a OEM PC. I'm rooting for him when he takes MS on and calls a spade a spade.
But this??? WTF!!!
This is just mindless, infantile crap. Frankly the "Lindows" name was always stupid, and amateurish, something that you joke about over a few beers with your buddies. Now we've simply magnified the stupidity with "Lind---" or whatever it's called.
I hope they crash and burn ASAP so this can be forgotten.
the file listing is clearly a unix style file listing, i.e. use of "/" as a directory separator as opposed to "\", and the filesystem apparently looks like Unix style single rooted file heirarchy (i.e. no volume names like "C:" or "G:"). Does MS really store files on Unix servers?
8.3 filenames are *only* needed for ISO9660 CDRs. The source tree uses whatever filenames people want.
No, my understanding was that it was microsoft policy to use 8.3 naming because of backward compatibility (with older filesystems, i.e. Win 3.1, DOS, etc). Any of the released code with VC6 (and I think VC7) is 8.3. And I remember reading them suggesting that people follow this as well, for their own code.
There have been articles on the web describing alot of their NT build process. They do use command line builds. They originally wrote a custom version control system, but now use something else (not Visual Source Safe, I think perforce, or perhaps they created anotehr system). I believe, if memory serves, that they had a custom make tool, but they may now use nmake, which is the make tool that's distributed with their commerical dev tools.
I recall the article did mention the use of perl for parts of the custom build scripts.
As a long time windows programmer, frankly, this stuff looks made up. Clever, amusing, but ultimately it seems like a hoax. If this is all the proof we have, then I'm afraid it's a bit pathetic!
Also there appear to be duplicate headers, repeated in various directories that I'm almost positive would end up screwing the compile process in a real build.
Also, another thing is that, if their distributed files with VC6/7 are indicative of their internal naming, they stick to a strict 8.3 naming scheme, and make note of this in their documentation (don't remember *where* it was that I read it, but it was MS docs, and I remember being surprised by it). Another thing, again assuming that the files distributed with VC6/7 are a good model, their files tend to be all UPPERCASE! For example, here's a listing from their includes in for VC6:
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 21912 Apr 24 1998 ACCCTRL.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 27863 Apr 24 1998 ACLAPI.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3735 Apr 24 1998 ACLCLS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 747 Apr 24 1998 ACLSID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 269 Apr 24 1998 ACSMGTC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 267 Apr 24 1998 ACSSVCC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 833 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVECF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1111 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEDS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 39805 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.MAK
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3794 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.RCV
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2053 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.VER
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 68013 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 17845 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3402 Apr 24 1998 ADDRLKUP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 18946 Apr 24 1998 ADMEX.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 10051 Apr 24 1998 ADMINEXT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2827 May 31 1998 ADOID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 343678 Jun 19 1998 ADOINT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 135222 Jun 2 1998 ADOMD.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 14127 May 31 1998 ADOMD.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 5083 Apr 24 1998 ADPTIF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1133 Apr 24 1998 ADS.ODL
Why is everyone running around like the sky is falling in? Has this thing even been proven? Are there any facts to back this up? What's to say this isn't just a big publicity stunt?
Christ, people are acting like there's a Martian invasion in progress. Please, just a little perspective!!!
Actually the apple way doesn't work on just a single file. What you see on the Desktop or the Application's folds as an app icon for a binary, is in fact a special folder, with an extremely rigid and well documented layout (see here for more information)
So when people talk about moving, or dragging and dropping, or copying an app from one machine to another, or from one folder to another, what they are in fact doing is moving a whole directory tree, with the binary inside of it (as well as other files).
Typically when you are ready to distribute your app, you do the equivalent of create a tgz file from the top level app folder. Your comment "take a.tgz or a tar.gz, decompress it, pop it into the apps folder, and expect it to run" is exactly what you do on OSX!
Slashdot Mirror
Well how this:
The Visual Component Framework
This is being developed as a cross platform framework (very siilar in features to Qt), but it is begin done on Win32 first, and then ported to OSX. And it's OSS, in that it's a BSD license.
Then you severely underestimate the power that 50 Billion dollars in the bank gives you.
You're kidding aren't you? :)). If you're able to prove this, why not submit this information to one of the major bug tracking sites (or wherever), maybe this would induce more public humilitation for Microsoft so it's fixed sooner.
Because if you're not, that's a pretty damning accusation (one at which I would *happily* smirk at if it were true
Hey, it's possible! I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Now if he had gone off on some crazed "we-did-it-in-the-back-room-storage-closet-with -her-three-best-friends" story then I might be inclined to call "bullshit".
Two words:
Navel Gazing
Hey asshole, how about a goddamn warning on a link like that?
Jesus, I've lost my apetite for weeks now.
thanks for the great link!!!
:)
If I had mod points I'd gladly give them to you.
Makes for great lunchtime reading.
Choose 2.
Will people still visit porn sites if their employers knew what sites they visit?
That's an interesting question. I wonder how many people actually download/view porn at work. I have certainly viewed/downloaded porn, but never at work, too worried about getting caught and getting fired.
The article mentions that iPods sell for around 550 euros or around $677 USD. That seems *awfully* expensive for an MP3 player. Is this just an anomaly for the iPod, or are computer prices in general quite high in France?
even to the extent of dagging them from my Linux box).
Cool that must be a part of the new Gnome HIG for Dag and Dop. Can't wait till I can do that on Windoze...
You've apparently not used Win2k (this may also apply to Win98 and/or WInXP).
If you use the common open or save dialogs (note that MS Office may or may not use these, I don't recall, but just about every other app out there *does*), you can type the first couple of letters of a file/directory name, and if it's in the directory, a dropdown box will appear, with a list of possible matches that you can use the Up or Down arrows keys to select. Just about as easy as using the tab completion in bash, and you *don't* need to use a mouse at all.
I think it more likely that Lindows will be sent to the doghouse.
We could only be so lucky!
Michael Roberts would have a field day with this. As much as I think the guys is sort of a goof, I'd love to see this happen. The potential comedy factor alone would be well worth it.
ossified version of particle board
Particle Bone!
I'm all for the concept of a super easy to use/set up linux distro.
He had me on board with the idea of trying to compete with Windows in terms of getting it installed on a OEM PC.
I'm rooting for him when he takes MS on and calls a spade a spade.
But this??? WTF!!!
This is just mindless, infantile crap. Frankly the "Lindows" name was always stupid, and amateurish, something that you joke about over a few beers with your buddies. Now we've simply magnified the stupidity with "Lind---" or whatever it's called.
I hope they crash and burn ASAP so this can be forgotten.
Or, for a one word response, RTFA
Actually, technically speaking, that's 4 words.
OK, then a question for you:
the file listing is clearly a unix style file listing, i.e. use of "/" as a directory separator as opposed to "\", and the filesystem apparently looks like Unix style single rooted file heirarchy (i.e. no volume names like "C:" or "G:"). Does MS really store files on Unix servers?
8.3 filenames are *only* needed for ISO9660 CDRs. The source tree uses whatever filenames people want. No, my understanding was that it was microsoft policy to use 8.3 naming because of backward compatibility (with older filesystems, i.e. Win 3.1, DOS, etc). Any of the released code with VC6 (and I think VC7) is 8.3. And I remember reading them suggesting that people follow this as well, for their own code.
There have been articles on the web describing alot of their NT build process. They do use command line builds. They originally wrote a custom version control system, but now use something else (not Visual Source Safe, I think perforce, or perhaps they created anotehr system). I believe, if memory serves, that they had a custom make tool, but they may now use nmake, which is the make tool that's distributed with their commerical dev tools.
I recall the article did mention the use of perl for parts of the custom build scripts.
As a long time windows programmer, frankly, this stuff looks made up. Clever, amusing, but ultimately it seems like a hoax. If this is all the proof we have, then I'm afraid it's a bit pathetic!
Also there appear to be duplicate headers, repeated in various directories that I'm almost positive would end up screwing the compile process in a real build. Also, another thing is that, if their distributed files with VC6/7 are indicative of their internal naming, they stick to a strict 8.3 naming scheme, and make note of this in their documentation (don't remember *where* it was that I read it, but it was MS docs, and I remember being surprised by it). Another thing, again assuming that the files distributed with VC6/7 are a good model, their files tend to be all UPPERCASE! For example, here's a listing from their includes in for VC6:
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 21912 Apr 24 1998 ACCCTRL.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 27863 Apr 24 1998 ACLAPI.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3735 Apr 24 1998 ACLCLS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 747 Apr 24 1998 ACLSID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 269 Apr 24 1998 ACSMGTC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 267 Apr 24 1998 ACSSVCC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 833 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVECF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1111 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEDS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 39805 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.MAK
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3794 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.RCV
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2053 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.VER
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 68013 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 17845 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3402 Apr 24 1998 ADDRLKUP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 18946 Apr 24 1998 ADMEX.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 10051 Apr 24 1998 ADMINEXT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2827 May 31 1998 ADOID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 343678 Jun 19 1998 ADOINT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 135222 Jun 2 1998 ADOMD.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 14127 May 31 1998 ADOMD.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 5083 Apr 24 1998 ADPTIF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1133 Apr 24 1998 ADS.ODL
Why is everyone running around like the sky is falling in? Has this thing even been proven? Are there any facts to back this up? What's to say this isn't just a big publicity stunt? Christ, people are acting like there's a Martian invasion in progress. Please, just a little perspective!!!
Try http://www.stardock.com/ - it does just this, and it has a *huge* collection of themes. Easier, safer, and legal to boot.
plus 5 Insightful???? WTF? Take off the tinfoil cap first.
Actually the apple way doesn't work on just a single file. What you see on the Desktop or the Application's folds as an app icon for a binary, is in fact a special folder, with an extremely rigid and well documented layout (see here for more information)
.tgz or a tar.gz, decompress it, pop it into the apps folder, and expect it to run" is exactly what you do on OSX!
So when people talk about moving, or dragging and dropping, or copying an app from one machine to another, or from one folder to another, what they are in fact doing is moving a whole directory tree, with the binary inside of it (as well as other files).
Typically when you are ready to distribute your app, you do the equivalent of create a tgz file from the top level app folder. Your comment "take a
For a $100? Dream on! Hell even my wife was appalled that she's so cheap!
The mind just boggles...