First of all, most statistics I've seen for Firefox browser usage are about as over-inflated as some peoples' Mac statistics or Linux-desktop statistics. Most Firefox fans like to pull their statistics from w3c or other standards sites, or from Slashdot and other pro-OSS or related sites. Obviously these numbers are ridiculously skewed because the people visiting these sites are going to be more aware of standards issues. If you look at stats from marketing and advertising sources, which tend to have a wider perspective of the net, you see that Firefox typically comes in around 18% of the browser market share. No disrespect to Firefox, because it's amazing they've acquired as much market share as they have in the Windows/IE dominated world, but overstating the statistics just comes off as desperate to validate your perspective.
Safari is insignificant, even with their bullshit bundling tactics. You can use these same marketing and advertising statistics to knock down the hugely overstated "Apple revolution" we're in the middle of, with their grand ~7% market share.
Oh, and back to desperate to validate your perspective, with IE holding 73% of the market share, and Firefox holding 18% of the market share, and Safari holding 6% of the market share, to make a statement like "and now you're still losing" is just ridiculous. Holding 73% of the browser market share isn't "losing", it's just "winning less". And if you look at the Firefox versus IE numbers, Firefox's growth against IE has started to simmer down. They had a big boom towards the end of 2007, but the installing Firefox trend seems to have burned itself out and FF growth has gone back to the slower trickle that it was before the boom started. If you look at the number objectively, that's the reality of the situation.
*** BTW if anyone who works for or is associated with Firefox is reading this, can we get some protected mode under Vista please? It's about what benefits the user, not what beef you have with Microsoft/Vista. I know you'd feel sick at the idea of a Firefox exploit that works on every platform but Vista, but deal with it, get over it, and do what's right for the consumer. As a front-line internet program that people are supposed to trust, the fact that you guys don't take full advantage of DEP, ASLR, and Protected Mode doesn't exactly impress. I'd expect you to take advantage of the same features on Linux and OSX too, if they offered them. Quit picking sides in the OS war and go that extra mile to support your users. ***
Just like the fantasy land the Apple fanbois are living in with their 7.8% market share, versus Windows having a 91% market share. All the witty commercials on earth can't change the fact that you hold less than ***10%*** of the PC market, despite having an arguably superior product and a fairly heavy marketing campaign. But at least Apple has some consumer appeal. Firefox? Most people don't give a damn about installing "another" browser. Their computer has IE, so they use IE. End of story.
Disclaimer: I'm shopping for MacBook Pros and I have no beef with Firefox, just with people who look at the situation through a magic lens that makes the world look like they want it to look.
Default Intranet Zone Permissions are medium-low. What the fuck is wrong with that? You should be pushing zone security settings via policy on your domain anyway, not using the defaults. Score: 5, Insightful my ass.
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held: 1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506 . 2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507 . 3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514 . 383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. [p*504]
This is generally my opinion on the topic too. All of the Google apologists jump in to tell us how we shouldn't expect privacy in public and how Google isn't doing anything illegal.
The point is, having someone film every inch of the country so they can make a buck on advertising isn't a "good" thing to do. It raises privacy concerns because while I know people can see me in public, I can reasonably expect that people aren't recording me for the simple reason that there isn't any great motivation to record me, and I am just one guy out of hundreds of millions of Americans. It would take the resources of a multi-billion dollar international corporation or national government to employ a sufficient amount of public recording to impact my life. Google is a multi-billion dollar international corporation who is recording the public to make a profit.
I'd like to hear the Google apologists' opinions on the insane BigBrother camera monitoring in the UK. The UK's (supposed) motivation is to stop crime, not to sell advertisements, so I'd have to think the UK's goals are a bit more noble and yet despite that I don't find what they're doing to be "good", in fact I'd say it's pretty damned evil.
So if you're one of those Google apologists who has no problem with Google filming every street in America and recording all kinds of additional information that StreetView wasn't intended to record, I hope you're okay with federal and state governments deploying UK style blanket video coverage of public places, and with other companies you may have less favorable opinions of like say... Microsoft, filming your houses, into your windows, and by chance into your open doors, and backyards.
However, I do appreciate what Google is doing in blurring the faces. This is a good first step. However, one of the fundamental flaws I see with StreetView is that it seems to be filmed from a higher height than any human I've ever met. I have 6 foot high fences because generally that keeps most people who aren't standing within a few feet of my fence from seeing into my front courtyard or back yard. Yet Google films StreetView from such a height that you often see right over peoples' fences into their backyards, where people have a reasonable expectation that nobody is going out of their way to film them for commercial gain. So I personally would like to see Google change StreetView to film from the perspective of an average adult male standing up or the average height of the driver of a motor vehicle. I don't see any legitimate reason to peer into peoples' back yards. Even if it is legal, I have to say I don't consider that "good". It comes off as quite evil to me.
"But the article doesn't do that, except when describing how details of Win32 leak into.NET."
The article didn't actually describe any accurate parts of Win32 that leak into.NET, except that WinForms is based on the WinProc event model of GUI development. That's one of the many valid ways to implement GUIs, and there's no reasoning as to why this isn't a valid design decision for Microsoft to make. Other than that, he points out a bunch of flaws in Win32 and implies that they "leak into.NET" but he fails to actually demonstrate any of them. On top of that, he makes several false statements including his claims that.NET's form thread synchronization somehow "lies" to you when you're checking whether or not you're in the form thread. He's obviously ignorant of the platform in question and can't back up any of this FUD with actual technical descriptions or code samples of what he's claiming is broken and where Win32 ACTUALLY leaks into.NET. This is FUD-fest 2008 and that's all there is to it.
Further, your arguments that somehow cutting edge enhancements like Vista's new TxNTFS should magically appear in.NET by now make no sense to me. If Microsoft were updating.NET that rapidly I wouldn't be interested in using it..NET doesn't replace Win32 for EVERYTHING, and nobody but people spreading FUD are saying it does. That's a straw man argument that both you and the author of the article have setup. Any program that uses TxNTFS features shouldn't be written in.NET, and features like that will obviously take time to be introduced into a managed platform anyway.
The stupidity of your statement is similar to "Java sucks because I can't do ZFS transactions, I have to actually write C if I want ZFS transactions." What? Sun didn't immediately release a new version of Java with ZFS functionality included in the FCL upon the release of ZFS itself?! They expect you to pinvoke/JNI?! ZOMG!!!!
No, he doesn't. Read about how he claims that the form thread synchronization mechanism is broken in.NET and will sometimes lie to you about what thread you're in which will cause your application to crash. This of course is news to us.NET developers who use the form thread synchronization in all of our multi-threaded applications and don't experience the FCL "lying" to us and we don't experience crashes because of false impressions that we're in the form thread. This is the kind of bug report I'd expect from a first year computer science student learning how to do form thread synchronization for the first time. His statements are complete horseshit, and it shows that this retard can't even accomplish the most basic tasks in.NET. Therefore, I ask who the hell is he to write a review of.NET versus Cocoa?
I think we could easily make that a litmus test for writing an article comparing the.NET platform to any of the other great platforms out there like Java and Cocoa:
If you can't figure out how to do basic form thread synchronization to allow worker threads to safely update your form's controls without claiming there's a flaw in the foundation class library, you are not qualified to write an article about.NET programming.
I won't even start on his biased slamming of enterprise systems development. It's clear that his knowledge of software engineering is limited to applications and he should just keep all other software engineering topics out of his mouth.
I'm sure Cocoa is an awesome enough development platform without needing this dumb ass to promote it through FUD and lies. I'd like to see him actually back up his claimed flaws in.NET with real code samples demonstrating them so we can point out his obvious errors and what a tool he is.
I couldn't agree with you more. UAC is intending to make a vendor do exactly what these guys had to do, implement a proper privilege separated design. They're bitching because they were forced to implement a good design because if you don't, UAC will be a huge problem for you.
Microsoft's goal with UAC *is* to be a pain in your ass (you the software developer) IF you're doing stupid shit that you shouldn't be doing. If you look all the way back to Microsoft's application standards efforts like "certified for Windows 2000", they've long been pushing certain basic requirements for developing applications. Things like, don't write to the Program Files directory, write to the user directory. Don't require admin privs when you don't need admin privs. Don't hard code system or special directory locations. All the whining and bitching comes from developers who have never adapted themselves to the proper standards of application development and instead get upset when they can't continue to use their stupid lazy techniques because Microsoft is starting to force the issue on developers who are still playing these games. Properly written applications only trigger UACs when it *makes sense* to trigger UACs.
If you think about all the years that people bitched at Microsoft for the fact that 99% of people run as Admin, and here they took the step of allowing people to run as non-Admin and still have a way to escalate when needed. But what we discovered is, most applications developers have written shitty code that violated standard application development practices for Windows, and now those vendors and those developers are in tears over how Vista exposes their product for the lazy shit that it is. Fix your shit, follow best practices, and shut the fuck up. I run Vista both at work and at home, as non-Admin, and I don't get UACs except when I would expect them (installing/uninstalling/system config) just like when I'd have to su/sudo in UNIX. The only time I get an excessive number of UACs is when I run bad software from stupid vendors, which usually means a quick uninstall and a search for someone less lazy.
The one exception is, I keep iTunes even though it's clear to me that the 5 UACs triggered by their damned installer are intentional.
Tell me you guys would defend UNIX apps that required you to su/sudo for apps that should easily be able to run as non-root? Considering the community's professed love of security, it's amazing to me that all these people are willing to defend shitty application developers who are responsible for a large percentage of exploits on the Windows platform. Those same exploits are used to build botnets of Windows boxes which are then used to spam and flood.
So I say, support UAC, because it gets your grandpa off the net as Admin so that his computer isn't used to spam my mailbox. If you're a power user and you think UAC sucks then TURN IT OFF, but be glad that the unwashed masses are able to run as non-Administrator and are less likely to get zombied.
You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it." But most importantly, I think OP really dicked up what he was saying. Notice how the word OSS falls outside of the quote. Notice how they were referring to GPL software. Bill Gates is saying he has a problem with the GPL, and the OP's obvious GPL bias translated that into ALL open source software. Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over. His arguments are against the GPL, not more liberal open source licenses like BSD or MIT.
The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software. Yet OP feels the need to tag the quoted subject of "OSS" rather than "GPL licensed software" into the tiny micro-quote of Gate's words.
Wow, submitting an XML schema for ISO standardization. That's a HUGE innovation. Good thing other people are willing to copy this "innovation" or ISO would be rather bored from a lack of submissions.
Unless of course, you're implying they actually COPIED something from ODF into OOXML, your argument is rather weak.
A powerful CLI they copied from UNIX, a product of AT&T. Having nothing to do with open source or GNU. Linux and the "powerful CLI" you speak of where copied (conceptually copied, not literally copied) from propreitary non-open source products.
Are you stupid or something? The Internet came from ARPANET, a project of the Department of Defense, and UNIX was invented by AT&T. Both of which came YEARS before Linux and GNU. Neither had anything to do with OSS.
It's idiocy like this that gives OSS supporters a bad name.
I couldn't agree with you more. The people who say that you can't parallelize most software, and the people who say writing parallelized code is extremely difficult and fraught with danger are people who simply have no talent with multi-threaded programming and want the world to stick to the paradigms that they're familiar with. These ignorant folks are running an informal PR campaign, spreading these myths and contaminating the public opinion towards parallelized programming. That's only reducing the number of developers who are encouraged to learn truly scalable multi-threaded development, which sets back the entire industry as we enter the manycore era. What's worse is, they offer up sharding / partitioning as an alternate solution where they can run their simple single threaded software on hundreds of computers rather than scaling up to meet the new designs of newer processors. These people knew they were in danger when x86 cpus maxed out at 4ghz (even improvements in IPC can only do so much).
Multi-threaded programming is a critical part of tomorrow's (or today's) scalability *and* performance. Sharding and/or partitioning is part of the solution, but it's not a replacement for software that can better take advantage of tomorrow's 8 and 12 core CPUs. If you had to partition your load, wouldn't you rather partition with software that fully utilized each system you deployed? Future CPUs are going to have many cores, whether you use them or not. I have worked with developers of all levels of skill and talent, and I've found that you CAN teach them to do decent multi-threaded development if they're not so afraid of the concept that they close their mind to it.
Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make parallel development and the manycore era of CPUs go away.
What Microsoft HAS proven (repeatedly) is that it considers compliance with standards to be a relative term.
Yes, and so do Opera, Firefox, Safari, and every other browser on the planet. Hopefully, they'll start being standards compliant too, and stop interpreting standards compliance to mean "better than Microsoft's standards compliance" which if you're following the point, is also a relative standard of compliance.
It's funny that you can damn a vendor for having a "relative" opinion towards standards compliance, when every other browser on earth is only "relatively" standards compliant. You could argue which is relatively more compliant than the other, but that's still relative compliance.
You show me a new release of Firefox or Opera that is FULLY and COMPLETELY standards compliant and I'll join the crowd of people willing to make broad statements about IE's lack of standards compliance. Until then, the hypocricy stains the conversation.
Yeah, I know, I run Solaris 10 x64 for my MySQL boxes. The crown I'm referring to is umm... the Linux fanboi vs FreeBSD fanboi crown...
Besides, administrating Solaris is *not* fun. I know they're getting better, but they need to add the word intuitive to their vocabulary. When I don't have to edit 5 files to change one boot-time IP address and/or hostname, we can talk up how great Solaris is. Nevermind comparing Blastwave to FreeBSD's ports tree. Much respect for their fine grained locking and MP performance, but if I could have their kernel with a FreeBSD userland and FreeBSD ports tree, I'd take it in a second.
Yeah, which the EU member states can then use to fund Airbus to compete with Boeing. European regulators extracting wealth from American corporations so they can fund European corporations which compete directly with American corporations. We should fine Airbus for not opening the bidding on the leather used for making the leather seats on their jets to American leather and synthetic leather companies. The fine will be 1.3 billion USD.
This is just plain highway robbery by a super-national European government agency which is clearly biased against American companies and is working in a protectionist fashion to shield European companies from the harsh reality of lassie fair competition, which the Europeans have lost the stomach for.
Yes, you're right. The English language not having a sufficient number of words to describe the 50,000,000 other job titles in the world, "web master" is clearly the only way to describe the position in question.
Why not Web Lord? Web Messiah? Web Christ?
There is obviously some ego that goes into pushing the title "webmaster".
You gotta love Firefox apologists. They can turn a complete failure on behalf of Firefox development and release engineering into a discussion about how Microsoft is horrible and IE fails.
You're living in the past. Everyone knows IE6 was horrible. I'm running IE7 under protected mode. If you're going to talk shit, at least talk shit about current software. People who spend their time talking about how Windows 98 crashed a lot, IE5 and 6 were really insecure, and IIS 5 was the fastest way for a computer to get hacked on the net, are really starting to sound tired and sad. When we're running Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8.0 in Protected Mode, and IIS 7.0 on Windows Server 2008, fools like you are still going to be apologizing for every bug in by bringing up bugs from Microsoft products 5+ years ago.
And even if IE6 was the most horrible browser ever and they waited for "moths if not years" for patches, how does that make this Firefox vulnerability any better? If IE6 is so bad, why is it your example for trying to minimize this Firefox vulnerability?
Microsoft products are getting better. Deal with it. Quit living in the past.
Finally someone puts one of these assclown *nix users with no actual CompSci knowledge or education, who read kernel mailing lists until they feel like they know dick about kernels despite having never written a line of even remotely low level code in their lives, in their damned place. Reading every email, blog, post, and article from Linus or anyone else involved in kernel development, does not convey upon you knowledge of kernel development and operating system architecture. Running many different flavors of *nix does not make you a *nix developer. We all try to contribute in whatever way we can, but spewing the compilation of everything you've ever read (and apparently misunderstood) about subjects like this only serves to increase the amount of misinformation and ignorance that exists in the community as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, most statistics I've seen for Firefox browser usage are about as over-inflated as some peoples' Mac statistics or Linux-desktop statistics. Most Firefox fans like to pull their statistics from w3c or other standards sites, or from Slashdot and other pro-OSS or related sites. Obviously these numbers are ridiculously skewed because the people visiting these sites are going to be more aware of standards issues. If you look at stats from marketing and advertising sources, which tend to have a wider perspective of the net, you see that Firefox typically comes in around 18% of the browser market share. No disrespect to Firefox, because it's amazing they've acquired as much market share as they have in the Windows/IE dominated world, but overstating the statistics just comes off as desperate to validate your perspective.
Safari is insignificant, even with their bullshit bundling tactics. You can use these same marketing and advertising statistics to knock down the hugely overstated "Apple revolution" we're in the middle of, with their grand ~7% market share.
Oh, and back to desperate to validate your perspective, with IE holding 73% of the market share, and Firefox holding 18% of the market share, and Safari holding 6% of the market share, to make a statement like "and now you're still losing" is just ridiculous. Holding 73% of the browser market share isn't "losing", it's just "winning less". And if you look at the Firefox versus IE numbers, Firefox's growth against IE has started to simmer down. They had a big boom towards the end of 2007, but the installing Firefox trend seems to have burned itself out and FF growth has gone back to the slower trickle that it was before the boom started. If you look at the number objectively, that's the reality of the situation.
*** BTW if anyone who works for or is associated with Firefox is reading this, can we get some protected mode under Vista please? It's about what benefits the user, not what beef you have with Microsoft/Vista. I know you'd feel sick at the idea of a Firefox exploit that works on every platform but Vista, but deal with it, get over it, and do what's right for the consumer. As a front-line internet program that people are supposed to trust, the fact that you guys don't take full advantage of DEP, ASLR, and Protected Mode doesn't exactly impress. I'd expect you to take advantage of the same features on Linux and OSX too, if they offered them. Quit picking sides in the OS war and go that extra mile to support your users. ***
Just like the fantasy land the Apple fanbois are living in with their 7.8% market share, versus Windows having a 91% market share. All the witty commercials on earth can't change the fact that you hold less than ***10%*** of the PC market, despite having an arguably superior product and a fairly heavy marketing campaign. But at least Apple has some consumer appeal. Firefox? Most people don't give a damn about installing "another" browser. Their computer has IE, so they use IE. End of story.
Disclaimer: I'm shopping for MacBook Pros and I have no beef with Firefox, just with people who look at the situation through a magic lens that makes the world look like they want it to look.
Default Intranet Zone Permissions are medium-low. What the fuck is wrong with that? You should be pushing zone security settings via policy on your domain anyway, not using the defaults. Score: 5, Insightful my ass.
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held: 1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506 . 2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507 . 3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514 . 383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. [p*504]
This is generally my opinion on the topic too. All of the Google apologists jump in to tell us how we shouldn't expect privacy in public and how Google isn't doing anything illegal.
The point is, having someone film every inch of the country so they can make a buck on advertising isn't a "good" thing to do. It raises privacy concerns because while I know people can see me in public, I can reasonably expect that people aren't recording me for the simple reason that there isn't any great motivation to record me, and I am just one guy out of hundreds of millions of Americans. It would take the resources of a multi-billion dollar international corporation or national government to employ a sufficient amount of public recording to impact my life. Google is a multi-billion dollar international corporation who is recording the public to make a profit.
I'd like to hear the Google apologists' opinions on the insane BigBrother camera monitoring in the UK. The UK's (supposed) motivation is to stop crime, not to sell advertisements, so I'd have to think the UK's goals are a bit more noble and yet despite that I don't find what they're doing to be "good", in fact I'd say it's pretty damned evil.
So if you're one of those Google apologists who has no problem with Google filming every street in America and recording all kinds of additional information that StreetView wasn't intended to record, I hope you're okay with federal and state governments deploying UK style blanket video coverage of public places, and with other companies you may have less favorable opinions of like say... Microsoft, filming your houses, into your windows, and by chance into your open doors, and backyards.
However, I do appreciate what Google is doing in blurring the faces. This is a good first step. However, one of the fundamental flaws I see with StreetView is that it seems to be filmed from a higher height than any human I've ever met. I have 6 foot high fences because generally that keeps most people who aren't standing within a few feet of my fence from seeing into my front courtyard or back yard. Yet Google films StreetView from such a height that you often see right over peoples' fences into their backyards, where people have a reasonable expectation that nobody is going out of their way to film them for commercial gain. So I personally would like to see Google change StreetView to film from the perspective of an average adult male standing up or the average height of the driver of a motor vehicle. I don't see any legitimate reason to peer into peoples' back yards. Even if it is legal, I have to say I don't consider that "good". It comes off as quite evil to me.
Google is taking pictures from a normal vantage point.
Yeah, a normal vantage point if you're standing on top of a van looking into everyone's backyard.
"But the article doesn't do that, except when describing how details of Win32 leak into .NET."
.NET, except that WinForms is based on the WinProc event model of GUI development. That's one of the many valid ways to implement GUIs, and there's no reasoning as to why this isn't a valid design decision for Microsoft to make. Other than that, he points out a bunch of flaws in Win32 and implies that they "leak into .NET" but he fails to actually demonstrate any of them. On top of that, he makes several false statements including his claims that .NET's form thread synchronization somehow "lies" to you when you're checking whether or not you're in the form thread. He's obviously ignorant of the platform in question and can't back up any of this FUD with actual technical descriptions or code samples of what he's claiming is broken and where Win32 ACTUALLY leaks into .NET. This is FUD-fest 2008 and that's all there is to it.
.NET by now make no sense to me. If Microsoft were updating .NET that rapidly I wouldn't be interested in using it. .NET doesn't replace Win32 for EVERYTHING, and nobody but people spreading FUD are saying it does. That's a straw man argument that both you and the author of the article have setup. Any program that uses TxNTFS features shouldn't be written in .NET, and features like that will obviously take time to be introduced into a managed platform anyway.
The article didn't actually describe any accurate parts of Win32 that leak into
Further, your arguments that somehow cutting edge enhancements like Vista's new TxNTFS should magically appear in
The stupidity of your statement is similar to "Java sucks because I can't do ZFS transactions, I have to actually write C if I want ZFS transactions." What? Sun didn't immediately release a new version of Java with ZFS functionality included in the FCL upon the release of ZFS itself?! They expect you to pinvoke/JNI?! ZOMG!!!!
No, he doesn't. Read about how he claims that the form thread synchronization mechanism is broken in .NET and will sometimes lie to you about what thread you're in which will cause your application to crash. This of course is news to us .NET developers who use the form thread synchronization in all of our multi-threaded applications and don't experience the FCL "lying" to us and we don't experience crashes because of false impressions that we're in the form thread. This is the kind of bug report I'd expect from a first year computer science student learning how to do form thread synchronization for the first time. His statements are complete horseshit, and it shows that this retard can't even accomplish the most basic tasks in .NET. Therefore, I ask who the hell is he to write a review of .NET versus Cocoa?
.NET platform to any of the other great platforms out there like Java and Cocoa:
.NET programming.
.NET with real code samples demonstrating them so we can point out his obvious errors and what a tool he is.
I think we could easily make that a litmus test for writing an article comparing the
If you can't figure out how to do basic form thread synchronization to allow worker threads to safely update your form's controls without claiming there's a flaw in the foundation class library, you are not qualified to write an article about
I won't even start on his biased slamming of enterprise systems development. It's clear that his knowledge of software engineering is limited to applications and he should just keep all other software engineering topics out of his mouth.
I'm sure Cocoa is an awesome enough development platform without needing this dumb ass to promote it through FUD and lies. I'd like to see him actually back up his claimed flaws in
I couldn't agree with you more. UAC is intending to make a vendor do exactly what these guys had to do, implement a proper privilege separated design. They're bitching because they were forced to implement a good design because if you don't, UAC will be a huge problem for you.
Microsoft's goal with UAC *is* to be a pain in your ass (you the software developer) IF you're doing stupid shit that you shouldn't be doing. If you look all the way back to Microsoft's application standards efforts like "certified for Windows 2000", they've long been pushing certain basic requirements for developing applications. Things like, don't write to the Program Files directory, write to the user directory. Don't require admin privs when you don't need admin privs. Don't hard code system or special directory locations. All the whining and bitching comes from developers who have never adapted themselves to the proper standards of application development and instead get upset when they can't continue to use their stupid lazy techniques because Microsoft is starting to force the issue on developers who are still playing these games. Properly written applications only trigger UACs when it *makes sense* to trigger UACs.
If you think about all the years that people bitched at Microsoft for the fact that 99% of people run as Admin, and here they took the step of allowing people to run as non-Admin and still have a way to escalate when needed. But what we discovered is, most applications developers have written shitty code that violated standard application development practices for Windows, and now those vendors and those developers are in tears over how Vista exposes their product for the lazy shit that it is. Fix your shit, follow best practices, and shut the fuck up. I run Vista both at work and at home, as non-Admin, and I don't get UACs except when I would expect them (installing/uninstalling/system config) just like when I'd have to su/sudo in UNIX. The only time I get an excessive number of UACs is when I run bad software from stupid vendors, which usually means a quick uninstall and a search for someone less lazy.
The one exception is, I keep iTunes even though it's clear to me that the 5 UACs triggered by their damned installer are intentional.
Tell me you guys would defend UNIX apps that required you to su/sudo for apps that should easily be able to run as non-root? Considering the community's professed love of security, it's amazing to me that all these people are willing to defend shitty application developers who are responsible for a large percentage of exploits on the Windows platform. Those same exploits are used to build botnets of Windows boxes which are then used to spam and flood.
So I say, support UAC, because it gets your grandpa off the net as Admin so that his computer isn't used to spam my mailbox. If you're a power user and you think UAC sucks then TURN IT OFF, but be glad that the unwashed masses are able to run as non-Administrator and are less likely to get zombied.
You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it." But most importantly, I think OP really dicked up what he was saying. Notice how the word OSS falls outside of the quote. Notice how they were referring to GPL software. Bill Gates is saying he has a problem with the GPL, and the OP's obvious GPL bias translated that into ALL open source software. Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over. His arguments are against the GPL, not more liberal open source licenses like BSD or MIT.
The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software. Yet OP feels the need to tag the quoted subject of "OSS" rather than "GPL licensed software" into the tiny micro-quote of Gate's words.
Wow, submitting an XML schema for ISO standardization. That's a HUGE innovation. Good thing other people are willing to copy this "innovation" or ISO would be rather bored from a lack of submissions.
Unless of course, you're implying they actually COPIED something from ODF into OOXML, your argument is rather weak.
A powerful CLI they copied from UNIX, a product of AT&T. Having nothing to do with open source or GNU. Linux and the "powerful CLI" you speak of where copied (conceptually copied, not literally copied) from propreitary non-open source products.
Explain to us how copying AT&T is innovating?
> The Internet? UNIX?
Are you stupid or something? The Internet came from ARPANET, a project of the Department of Defense, and UNIX was invented by AT&T. Both of which came YEARS before Linux and GNU. Neither had anything to do with OSS.
It's idiocy like this that gives OSS supporters a bad name.
I couldn't agree with you more. The people who say that you can't parallelize most software, and the people who say writing parallelized code is extremely difficult and fraught with danger are people who simply have no talent with multi-threaded programming and want the world to stick to the paradigms that they're familiar with. These ignorant folks are running an informal PR campaign, spreading these myths and contaminating the public opinion towards parallelized programming. That's only reducing the number of developers who are encouraged to learn truly scalable multi-threaded development, which sets back the entire industry as we enter the manycore era. What's worse is, they offer up sharding / partitioning as an alternate solution where they can run their simple single threaded software on hundreds of computers rather than scaling up to meet the new designs of newer processors. These people knew they were in danger when x86 cpus maxed out at 4ghz (even improvements in IPC can only do so much).
Multi-threaded programming is a critical part of tomorrow's (or today's) scalability *and* performance. Sharding and/or partitioning is part of the solution, but it's not a replacement for software that can better take advantage of tomorrow's 8 and 12 core CPUs. If you had to partition your load, wouldn't you rather partition with software that fully utilized each system you deployed? Future CPUs are going to have many cores, whether you use them or not. I have worked with developers of all levels of skill and talent, and I've found that you CAN teach them to do decent multi-threaded development if they're not so afraid of the concept that they close their mind to it.
Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make parallel development and the manycore era of CPUs go away.
How many hundreds of millions of sites do the same thing with Flash? Install Flash to power this ugly animated page header! Neat.
Seriously, this story exists to point out the obvious: There is currently more Flash than Silverlight. ZOMG the shock!
Now lets all take this opportunity to knock our least favorite monopolist, Microsoft, and espouse our loyalty to our favorite monopolist, Adobe.
What Microsoft HAS proven (repeatedly) is that it considers compliance with standards to be a relative term.
Yes, and so do Opera, Firefox, Safari, and every other browser on the planet. Hopefully, they'll start being standards compliant too, and stop interpreting standards compliance to mean "better than Microsoft's standards compliance" which if you're following the point, is also a relative standard of compliance.
It's funny that you can damn a vendor for having a "relative" opinion towards standards compliance, when every other browser on earth is only "relatively" standards compliant. You could argue which is relatively more compliant than the other, but that's still relative compliance.
You show me a new release of Firefox or Opera that is FULLY and COMPLETELY standards compliant and I'll join the crowd of people willing to make broad statements about IE's lack of standards compliance. Until then, the hypocricy stains the conversation.
Yeah, I know, I run Solaris 10 x64 for my MySQL boxes. The crown I'm referring to is umm... the Linux fanboi vs FreeBSD fanboi crown...
Besides, administrating Solaris is *not* fun. I know they're getting better, but they need to add the word intuitive to their vocabulary. When I don't have to edit 5 files to change one boot-time IP address and/or hostname, we can talk up how great Solaris is. Nevermind comparing Blastwave to FreeBSD's ports tree. Much respect for their fine grained locking and MP performance, but if I could have their kernel with a FreeBSD userland and FreeBSD ports tree, I'd take it in a second.
How about the benchmarks that show that FreeBSD just took the performance crown from Linux?
I learned this in 6th grade. I'm now 28 years old. timeline.jpg anyone?
How is this all over the news?
Yeah, which the EU member states can then use to fund Airbus to compete with Boeing. European regulators extracting wealth from American corporations so they can fund European corporations which compete directly with American corporations. We should fine Airbus for not opening the bidding on the leather used for making the leather seats on their jets to American leather and synthetic leather companies. The fine will be 1.3 billion USD.
This is just plain highway robbery by a super-national European government agency which is clearly biased against American companies and is working in a protectionist fashion to shield European companies from the harsh reality of lassie fair competition, which the Europeans have lost the stomach for.
PEBKAC ---- says it all
Yes, you're right. The English language not having a sufficient number of words to describe the 50,000,000 other job titles in the world, "web master" is clearly the only way to describe the position in question.
Why not Web Lord? Web Messiah? Web Christ?
There is obviously some ego that goes into pushing the title "webmaster".
Quick, cue the Linux apologists! Damage control! Spin it! Only noobs and bad administrators would be affected!
You gotta love Firefox apologists. They can turn a complete failure on behalf of Firefox development and release engineering into a discussion about how Microsoft is horrible and IE fails.
You're living in the past. Everyone knows IE6 was horrible. I'm running IE7 under protected mode. If you're going to talk shit, at least talk shit about current software. People who spend their time talking about how Windows 98 crashed a lot, IE5 and 6 were really insecure, and IIS 5 was the fastest way for a computer to get hacked on the net, are really starting to sound tired and sad. When we're running Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8.0 in Protected Mode, and IIS 7.0 on Windows Server 2008, fools like you are still going to be apologizing for every bug in by bringing up bugs from Microsoft products 5+ years ago.
And even if IE6 was the most horrible browser ever and they waited for "moths if not years" for patches, how does that make this Firefox vulnerability any better? If IE6 is so bad, why is it your example for trying to minimize this Firefox vulnerability?
Microsoft products are getting better. Deal with it. Quit living in the past.
Finally someone puts one of these assclown *nix users with no actual CompSci knowledge or education, who read kernel mailing lists until they feel like they know dick about kernels despite having never written a line of even remotely low level code in their lives, in their damned place. Reading every email, blog, post, and article from Linus or anyone else involved in kernel development, does not convey upon you knowledge of kernel development and operating system architecture. Running many different flavors of *nix does not make you a *nix developer. We all try to contribute in whatever way we can, but spewing the compilation of everything you've ever read (and apparently misunderstood) about subjects like this only serves to increase the amount of misinformation and ignorance that exists in the community as a whole.