One more thing.. if you have ever used any version of VS (which I can't believe that you have), you would not be saying that VS Express + TestDriven.net is a valid replacement for one of the Team Suite versions.
I think you over estimate the value of having unit testing built into the IDE. Its a nice feature, not a must have. Those that can't pay (like me) will simply continue to use NUnit + attach to process.
Those using express likely aren't going to be writing unit tests at all. If you check out the VS Express team's blog, you'll see that something like 80% of those that register to use Express are not professionals, they are absolute beginners.
If you've spent any time in the csharp newsgroup, you'd have noticed a large increase in noobs, which I attribute to the Express versions of studio. Which is fine by me.
If they don't want addin support in the free edition, disable it in the product.
It is.
If someone enables it and it works, what exactly has he done wrong?
If you hack your sat. Tv card to get things you're not supposed to, have you done something wrong? Yes, you have.
Only if your terms make sense. If, for example, you said "nobody with a yellow shirt can use my software"... that would be your term, but it would be a stupid term and people would ignore it in all likelihood.
It doesn't matter if you believe the terms make sense or not. You can choose to follow them or not (and not use the product). I'm sure someone in Iran would think it doesn't make sense for me to include a term that software is not to be used in a non-democratic country, but that doesn't give them the right to simply ignore it.
We're not talking about breaking your copyright, we're talking about arbitrary rules which they apparenty didn't enforce in their own code.
So I have to lock my door, otherwise its my fault if you come into my house and take my TV? That's some nice logic you have there.
We have a web master here, used to Linux. But because we are a windows shop, we moved to a Windows hosted server. She also has a personal server which another employee needed access, so that she chould copy files to said server.
Frustrated by Windows permissions (she says they are too complex..), she was about to set the entire C: security permissions to give Everyone FULL CONTROL. I've offered to explain to her file security, but she "never has time."
I can only wonder how many windows boxes are exploited when someone like her is working..
When your product REQUIRES antivirus software, your product is not secure by itself.
Really? So even the user that runs an executable from an untrusted source which is designed to damage that all files, but can't harm the OS itself is not something worth protecting against? What about that users files? I am sure those have importance, at least to the user, but possibly to an entire department if we're talking about a business setting.
Really? wireless B and WEP is the step down from AES+RADIUS?
Yes, it is. WEP encryption isn't as strong, and it relies on a shared key.
I suspect you have WPA2-PSK, which has the same problem as WEP with a shared key; the shared key can be easily discovered. IIRC, its actually EASIER with WPA2-PSK to get the key than it was with WEP.
My wife bought me a Wii, and didn't even do that. We tried to get one as a gift for someone else for Xmas, couldn't find it and got them a 360 instead. A month or so later and she just happened to walk in, ask, and they had a used one for sale. So she picked it up for me.
No, it wouldn't convert anyone. No one is going to switch OSes to get a different web browser. In all likely hood, if FF was Linux only, no one outside the Linux community would know about it, much like Konq.
Well, I just had a charge appear from a powerwashing company in VA, and I haven't been anywhere near VA for years. I have no idea what was bought, but it was a few hundred dollars worth of goods or services. (I'm not sure the company isn't some fake thing anyway..) Fortunately I caught it as soon as it posted and have had the card canceled... but it still don't feel very good about the whole mess.
No, spam is not a freedom of speech issue. For example, no one's freedom of speech permits them to fill up the HR guy's email box to the point where it is almost unusable. The mailbox exists for the purpose of business communications.
Freedom of speech does not permit you to litter your neighbors house with leaflets, not matter what they say.
I don't think people are going to far in battling spam; we recently switched to a new mail server, which has spam filtering built in using several filters, and our HR person is very grateful. Now instead of 300 spam emails, and 3 legit ones, he only has the three legit ones, and possibly a few spam.
On the other hand, no one is being forced to look at a porn site. Anyone that wants to see it can, and anyone that doesn't go browsing for it.
No. The agreement forbids shipping Win2k at all. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I still can get Win9x from MSDN (hell, I can get DOS 6.22), so its not because they just want to hide Win2k from developers.
How can it not be? You don't think that this is a major shift for them, even if it is just one product so far? Of course nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.
They cannot release Win2k source code; doing so would violate their agreement with Sun following the Java lawsuit. Win2k binaries aren't even available on MSDN anymore. Basically, if you don't already have a Win2k disc, you're not going to get one.
No, MS wants interop, and they seem to realize they need to play with standards.
The CardSpace cards idea is backed by others, including Sun. All the technology it uses is standard WS-* specifications. The only proprietary part is the Card Selector interface, which each OS needs to develop for themselves. I was even shown the Html tags that Firefox would need to interperate to know it needed to deal with the CardSpace.
As another example, by default, VS 2005 Asp.net projects target strict Xhtml 1.1; all the controls emit strict Xhtml 1.1 unless told not to. An odd choice for a company that supposedly hates standards.
The reason MS isn't going anywhere anytime soon is the same reason they are still here; they actually DO learn from their mistakes. MS's first attempt at something like this was Passport.. and they know why passport failed.
The cards are stored on an encrypted portion of the disk which can ONLY be accessed by the CardSpace user account. If you install.Net 3, you'll have a CardSpace control panel item. When you run it, your entire desktop is disabled until you are done working with it.
That's because that control panel item ONLY runs under an account specifically designed to manage the cards, and ONLY that account has the encryption keys needed to unlock the disks.
Its a physical device. It may not always be attached to the computer, so its not as convenient when someone wants to buy something from the web. Manufacturing costs are much higher for Identity Providers than sending out an electronic file.
Thanks for providing the only sane post I've read so far.
I actually attended an MSDN event last week, and CardSpace as one of the topics. Its goal is similar to Passport, which the presenter admitted failed. They also know why they failed; because no one wanted to give MS all their personal information when MS wasn't involved in the transaction in any way.
MS WANTS others to implement this, and the whole thing is built on web service standards. CardSpace is just the card manager / selector on Windows; they fully expect Apple, Linux and other OSes to implement their own UI. Also, there's a blog of Html that ANY browser can be made to recognize that will cause the user to be prompted for their card.
There's only one thing wrong with the above post; the user does NOT create a card for Amazon; instead Amazon would issue a managed card. Actually in all likely hood your bank would issue a card with your CC information in it. Users CANNOT create a card with account information in it.
You are always given the option to use local *instead* of UTC, which is the standard on all unix-like systems.
And in the installs I've done, using local time is the default.
And you know why?
Because the distro wanted to give you a choice.
Because it's well known that all well behaved OSs store time as UTC (and linux is a well behaved system to this regard).
So linux that stores time as local is not well behaved? I'm sorry, who appointed you as the judge of what MY computer should be doing?
But there's quite a famous PC OS that is not well behaved, and it's well known that Linux usually has to coexist with that other famous PC OS.
What, linux can't figure out time properly? Everything has to match what it does exactly?
So the only reason Linux asks you if you want to store time as local is because Windows! It's because there's no other way to have the fiction that on a multiboot environment both windows and linux show the proper local time.
Wow, you pulled this one out of your ass, didn't you?
I don't think *you* understand the full nature of the problem, which, once again, it's that Windows is crap and tries to force its crapness down your throat even when you are not using windows.
M$ blows; they can't code their way out of a bag!111!!11 WAAA MY OS OF CHOICE ISN'T THE ONLY ONE USED!
I guess Linux is too stupid to handle such a simple thing as DST and such. After all, it shouldn't matter what is stored on the local computer. BTW, Windows will be handling this just fine; the patch is meant to put the new rules into place, and to keep a correct history that when DST starts and ends has changed. It goes a bit beyond what is stored on the local hardware clock (and that doesn't affect other computers on the network at all).
AS to the choice to store local time; I prefer it. Why? Because 99% of the time, I don't care about anything but local time.
Slashdot Mirror
One more thing.. if you have ever used any version of VS (which I can't believe that you have), you would not be saying that VS Express + TestDriven.net is a valid replacement for one of the Team Suite versions.
I think you over estimate the value of having unit testing built into the IDE. Its a nice feature, not a must have. Those that can't pay (like me) will simply continue to use NUnit + attach to process.
Those using express likely aren't going to be writing unit tests at all. If you check out the VS Express team's blog, you'll see that something like 80% of those that register to use Express are not professionals, they are absolute beginners.
If you've spent any time in the csharp newsgroup, you'd have noticed a large increase in noobs, which I attribute to the Express versions of studio. Which is fine by me.
If they don't want addin support in the free edition, disable it in the product.
... that would be your term, but it would be a stupid term and people would ignore it in all likelihood.
It is.
If someone enables it and it works, what exactly has he done wrong?
If you hack your sat. Tv card to get things you're not supposed to, have you done something wrong? Yes, you have.
Only if your terms make sense. If, for example, you said "nobody with a yellow shirt can use my software"
It doesn't matter if you believe the terms make sense or not. You can choose to follow them or not (and not use the product). I'm sure someone in Iran would think it doesn't make sense for me to include a term that software is not to be used in a non-democratic country, but that doesn't give them the right to simply ignore it.
We're not talking about breaking your copyright, we're talking about arbitrary rules which they apparenty didn't enforce in their own code.
So I have to lock my door, otherwise its my fault if you come into my house and take my TV? That's some nice logic you have there.
They already do, but its only available to the Team System editions. I don't belive they have any plans to make it available in the 'lesser' editions.
Windows doesn't. *USERS* do.
Thanks for that, it sums everything up nicely.
We have a web master here, used to Linux. But because we are a windows shop, we moved to a Windows hosted server. She also has a personal server which another employee needed access, so that she chould copy files to said server.
Frustrated by Windows permissions (she says they are too complex..), she was about to set the entire C: security permissions to give Everyone FULL CONTROL. I've offered to explain to her file security, but she "never has time."
I can only wonder how many windows boxes are exploited when someone like her is working..
When your product REQUIRES antivirus software, your product is not secure by itself.
Really? So even the user that runs an executable from an untrusted source which is designed to damage that all files, but can't harm the OS itself is not something worth protecting against? What about that users files? I am sure those have importance, at least to the user, but possibly to an entire department if we're talking about a business setting.
Really? wireless B and WEP is the step down from AES+RADIUS?
Yes, it is. WEP encryption isn't as strong, and it relies on a shared key.
I suspect you have WPA2-PSK, which has the same problem as WEP with a shared key; the shared key can be easily discovered. IIRC, its actually EASIER with WPA2-PSK to get the key than it was with WEP.
My normal wireless is G, WPA2-EAS.
I really like how the wireless Internet is set up, it's easy to use, and works even with my locked down access point.
Locked down? It couldn't get it working with my setup, which is AES + RADIUS. So I have to put out the old B wireless and use WEP..
My wife bought me a Wii, and didn't even do that. We tried to get one as a gift for someone else for Xmas, couldn't find it and got them a 360 instead. A month or so later and she just happened to walk in, ask, and they had a used one for sale. So she picked it up for me.
Why on earth would the UK adapt the euro? The pound is much stronger than the euro, and last time I checked, one pound was worth two US dollars.
No, it wouldn't convert anyone. No one is going to switch OSes to get a different web browser. In all likely hood, if FF was Linux only, no one outside the Linux community would know about it, much like Konq.
Well, I just had a charge appear from a powerwashing company in VA, and I haven't been anywhere near VA for years. I have no idea what was bought, but it was a few hundred dollars worth of goods or services. (I'm not sure the company isn't some fake thing anyway..) Fortunately I caught it as soon as it posted and have had the card canceled... but it still don't feel very good about the whole mess.
No, spam is not a freedom of speech issue. For example, no one's freedom of speech permits them to fill up the HR guy's email box to the point where it is almost unusable. The mailbox exists for the purpose of business communications.
Freedom of speech does not permit you to litter your neighbors house with leaflets, not matter what they say.
I don't think people are going to far in battling spam; we recently switched to a new mail server, which has spam filtering built in using several filters, and our HR person is very grateful. Now instead of 300 spam emails, and 3 legit ones, he only has the three legit ones, and possibly a few spam.
On the other hand, no one is being forced to look at a porn site. Anyone that wants to see it can, and anyone that doesn't go browsing for it.
What standard might that be?
Well, first off I was wrong. The default (which is configurable) is Xhtml 1.0 Trans.
As for not supporting it, a simple change of mime type on IIS shows that FF doesn't know what to do with such content either.
Yes, you're right. I had changed the default target setting...
I didn't see why the default was 1.0 trans though.. did I miss it in the article?
Of course then you lose your support options.
No. The agreement forbids shipping Win2k at all. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I still can get Win9x from MSDN (hell, I can get DOS 6.22), so its not because they just want to hide Win2k from developers.
How can it not be? You don't think that this is a major shift for them, even if it is just one product so far? Of course nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.
They cannot release Win2k source code; doing so would violate their agreement with Sun following the Java lawsuit. Win2k binaries aren't even available on MSDN anymore. Basically, if you don't already have a Win2k disc, you're not going to get one.
No, MS wants interop, and they seem to realize they need to play with standards.
The CardSpace cards idea is backed by others, including Sun. All the technology it uses is standard WS-* specifications. The only proprietary part is the Card Selector interface, which each OS needs to develop for themselves. I was even shown the Html tags that Firefox would need to interperate to know it needed to deal with the CardSpace.
As another example, by default, VS 2005 Asp.net projects target strict Xhtml 1.1; all the controls emit strict Xhtml 1.1 unless told not to. An odd choice for a company that supposedly hates standards.
The reason MS isn't going anywhere anytime soon is the same reason they are still here; they actually DO learn from their mistakes. MS's first attempt at something like this was Passport.. and they know why passport failed.
You're safe!
.Net 3, you'll have a CardSpace control panel item. When you run it, your entire desktop is disabled until you are done working with it.
The cards are stored on an encrypted portion of the disk which can ONLY be accessed by the CardSpace user account. If you install
That's because that control panel item ONLY runs under an account specifically designed to manage the cards, and ONLY that account has the encryption keys needed to unlock the disks.
Its a physical device. It may not always be attached to the computer, so its not as convenient when someone wants to buy something from the web. Manufacturing costs are much higher for Identity Providers than sending out an electronic file.
Thanks for providing the only sane post I've read so far.
I actually attended an MSDN event last week, and CardSpace as one of the topics. Its goal is similar to Passport, which the presenter admitted failed. They also know why they failed; because no one wanted to give MS all their personal information when MS wasn't involved in the transaction in any way.
MS WANTS others to implement this, and the whole thing is built on web service standards. CardSpace is just the card manager / selector on Windows; they fully expect Apple, Linux and other OSes to implement their own UI. Also, there's a blog of Html that ANY browser can be made to recognize that will cause the user to be prompted for their card.
There's only one thing wrong with the above post; the user does NOT create a card for Amazon; instead Amazon would issue a managed card. Actually in all likely hood your bank would issue a card with your CC information in it. Users CANNOT create a card with account information in it.
You are always given the option to use local *instead* of UTC, which is the standard on all unix-like systems.
And in the installs I've done, using local time is the default.
And you know why?
Because the distro wanted to give you a choice.
Because it's well known that all well behaved OSs store time as UTC (and linux is a well behaved system to this regard).
So linux that stores time as local is not well behaved? I'm sorry, who appointed you as the judge of what MY computer should be doing?
But there's quite a famous PC OS that is not well behaved, and it's well known that Linux usually has to coexist with that other famous PC OS.
What, linux can't figure out time properly? Everything has to match what it does exactly?
So the only reason Linux asks you if you want to store time as local is because Windows! It's because there's no other way to have the fiction that on a multiboot environment both windows and linux show the proper local time.
Wow, you pulled this one out of your ass, didn't you?
I don't think *you* understand the full nature of the problem, which, once again, it's that Windows is crap and tries to force its crapness down your throat even when you are not using windows.
M$ blows; they can't code their way out of a bag!111!!11 WAAA MY OS OF CHOICE ISN'T THE ONLY ONE USED!
I guess Linux is too stupid to handle such a simple thing as DST and such. After all, it shouldn't matter what is stored on the local computer. BTW, Windows will be handling this just fine; the patch is meant to put the new rules into place, and to keep a correct history that when DST starts and ends has changed. It goes a bit beyond what is stored on the local hardware clock (and that doesn't affect other computers on the network at all).
AS to the choice to store local time; I prefer it. Why? Because 99% of the time, I don't care about anything but local time.
Great, just what we need, more book smart people with no social skills.